world war ii era residential housing in las vegas, clark...

World War II Era Residential Housing in Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada (1940–1945)

HPF Tracking No.: P14AS00012(3) Prepared for: The city of Las Vegas Development Services Center and Historic Preservation Commission Prepared by: Greta J. Rayle, M.A., RPA and Helana Ruter, M.A.

Logan Simpson 3753 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 235 Las Vegas, NV 89169 June 2015 LSD Technical Report No. 145648

The archival research and windshield survey of historic properties that is the

subject of this historic context on World War II era residential housing in the

city of Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada has been financed in whole or part

with federal funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the

Interior, and administered by the State Historic Preservation Office. The

contents and opinions, however, do not necessarily reflect the views or

policies of the U.S. Department of the Interior or the State Historic

Preservation Office. This program receives federal financial assistance for

identification and protection of historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Age

Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, the U.S. Department of the Interior

prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability or

age in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been

discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above,

or if you desire further information, please write to: Chief, Office of Equal

Opportunity Programs, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, 1201 Eye Street, NW (2740), Washington, D.C. 20005.

City of Las Vegas Historic Context June 2015 WWII Era Residential Housing in Las Vegas LSD Technical Report No. 145648 i

ABSTRACT AND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Report Title World War II Era Residential Housing in Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada (1940–1945)

Agencies Involved The city of Las Vegas (city)

LSD Project No. 145648

Report Date June 22, 2015

Project Description

The city of Las Vegas Development Services Center requested that Logan Simpson prepare a comprehensive historic context for neighborhoods and subdivisions constructed in suburban Las Vegas during the World War II (WWII) era. The context will serve as a planning tool to be used by the Department of Planning, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as part of their continued effort to document and evaluate the eligibility of neighborhoods within the city for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Project Location The incorporated limits of the city of Las Vegas comprise the geographical area covered by the context.

Methods Archival research and a windshield survey of representative historic properties

Summary

At the request of the city of Las Vegas Development Services Center, Logan Simpson prepared a comprehensive historic context for neighborhoods and subdivisions constructed in suburban Las Vegas during the WWII era (1940–1945). Residential subdivision development in the United States (U.S.) was generally limited during the period between 1940 and 1945 due to a lack of available funding as well as construction materials reserved for military use, as the Federal government devoted resources to the war effort. Prior to the U.S. housing crisis during WWII, President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) under the legislative umbrella of the 1934 National Housing Act (NHA). The agency’s role was to provide an incentive for private developers to construct new subdivisions. Rather than provide loans or subsidies for housing, the FHA provided insurance on two types of mortgage loans—those for the repair, remodeling, and redecorating of existing structures (as identified in Title I of the NHA) and those for the construction of new buildings (as identified in Title II). In 1938, an amendment to Title II of the act was passed in order to encourage the development of “small homes.” The FHA allowed for insurance on mortgages up to 90 percent of the property value for owner-occupied homes, whereas the former Title II guidelines limited insurance to 80 percent. This new Title II program was limited to maximum loan amounts of $5,400 but it served as a great stimulus to the housing construction sector. World War II (WWII) began in Europe in 1939 and the U.S. began ramping up production of materials to support allied forces in 1940. Certain areas within the country, such as Las Vegas, became centers for war time production creating population booms and concomitant housing shortages. One of the federal responses to this crisis was enactment of the Title VI amendment to the NHA in 1941. This amendment authorized the FHA to insure mortgages up to 90 percent of the home value on one- to four-unit dwellings for both owner-occupied and builder-owned properties in locations defined as “critical defense areas.” Las Vegas was designated a critical defense area in June 1941 which facilitated the development of new residential subdivisions.

City of Las Vegas Historic Context June 2015 WWII Era Residential Housing in Las Vegas LSD Technical Report No. 145648 ii

Three Title VI neighborhoods have been previously identified through survey in the city and include the Huntridge, Biltmore, and Mayfair Neighborhoods. The Vega Verde subdivision was also previously identified as a FHA Title II development by the city during preparation of a NRHP nomination for the John S. Park Neighborhood. Logan Simpson identified four additional neighborhoods through archival research, all of which are examples of “built-on-demand” or custom subdivisions developed by private investors during the WWII era. These neighborhoods include the Beckley Subdivision (1941), Sebec Acres (1941), Eastland Heights (1942), and Charleston Square (1945). This historical overview places custom neighborhoods and Title II and Title VI developments within Las Vegas into a broader local, state, and national context of war-time housing development; examines how race-based housing restrictions impacted African Americans in Las Vegas; and defines the architectural styles and physical infrastructure associated with residential WWII era developments. Property registration requirements for individual properties including single-family and multi-family dwellings and the subdivisions as a whole follow the historic contexts in this document. The overview also identifies geographical boundaries and provides a summary of identification and evaluation methods and references consulted.

City of Las Vegas Historic Context June 2015 WWII Era Residential Housing in Las Vegas LSD Technical Report No. 145648 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract and Management Summary ................................................................................................................................ i Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Section I: Residential Subdivision Development in the Early Twentieth Century............................................................. 3

The Response of the Federal Government to the Nation’s Housing Crisis .................................................................. 4 Establishment of the NHA and Creation of the FHA .................................................................................................... 5

Title I and Title II of the NHA .................................................................................................................................... 6 Design Standards of the FHA’s Land Planning Division .......................................................................................... 7 Federally Funded Defense Housing Programs ........................................................................................................ 9 Title VI Amendment to the NHA (1941) .................................................................................................................. 10 Serviceman’s Readjustment Act (1944) ................................................................................................................. 13

Context 1: Growth of Las Vegas and WWII-era Subdivision Development ............................................................... 14 Las Vegas during the Depression Era .................................................................................................................... 16 The Impact of the Defense Industry on the Growth of Greater Las Vegas ............................................................ 18

Las Vegas Army Air Force Gunnery School/Nellis Air Force Base .................................................................... 19 Basic Magnesium, Inc......................................................................................................................................... 21

Context 2: Local Efforts to Cope with the War-Time Housing Shortage .................................................................... 24 The Development of Built on Demand (Custom) Subdivisions .............................................................................. 25

Beckley Subdivision (1941) ................................................................................................................................ 25 Sebec Acres (1941) ............................................................................................................................................ 29 Eastland Heights Neighborhood (1942, 1945, 1957, and 1959) ........................................................................ 33 Charleston Square (1945; 1948–1949) .............................................................................................................. 43

FHA-Influenced Subdivisions ................................................................................................................................. 51 The Vega Verde Addition within the John S. Park Historic District (1941–1945) ............................................... 51 Biltmore Addition (1941–1946) ........................................................................................................................... 59 Huntridge Neighborhood (1941–1946) ............................................................................................................... 67 Mayfair Homes Subdivision (1941–1946) .......................................................................................................... 84

Context 3: Racial Segregation and the Development of West Las Vegas ................................................................. 93 Section II: Architectural Context ..................................................................................................................................... 99

Residential Architecture of Las Vegas during WWII ................................................................................................... 99 The Impact of the FHA on Residential Housing Design ........................................................................................... 100

War-time Restrictions and Impacts upon Housing Design and Construction ...................................................... 101 Manifestation of National Architectural Trends in Las Vegas Residential Subdivisions........................................... 102 Biographies and Professional Contributions of Architects, Builders, Developers, and Corporations ...................... 103

Beckley Subdivision .............................................................................................................................................. 103 Guy Dewey Mathis ............................................................................................................................................ 103

Biltmore Addition .................................................................................................................................................. 104 A. E. Tiffany and Orville Albert Bell (Biltmore Homes, Inc.) ............................................................................. 104 A. P. Maynard, Albert “Al” E. Cahlan, Archie C. Grant, and E. W. Clark (Victory Homes, Inc.) ....................... 105

Mayfair Subdivision .............................................................................................................................................. 109 Earl A. Honrath and Edmund A. Clark (Home Builders’ Corporation) .............................................................. 109 G. “Lee” Cochran .............................................................................................................................................. 110 Horace Shidler (Horace Shidler and Son) ........................................................................................................ 110

Vega Verde Addition ............................................................................................................................................. 110 George Franklin and John Law (Franklin & Law Developers) .......................................................................... 110 Frank Beam ...................................................................................................................................................... 111

Charleston Square ................................................................................................................................................ 114 Lembke Construction Company ....................................................................................................................... 114

Section III: Associated Property Types ......................................................................................................................... 115 Individual Single-family Dwelling .............................................................................................................................. 117

City of Las Vegas Historic Context June 2015 WWII Era Residential Housing in Las Vegas LSD Technical Report No. 145648 iv

Description ............................................................................................................................................................ 117 Significance .......................................................................................................................................................... 118 Integrity ................................................................................................................................................................. 119

Location ............................................................................................................................................................ 119 Design ............................................................................................................................................................... 119 Setting ............................................................................................................................................................... 119 Materials ........................................................................................................................................................... 120 Workmanship .................................................................................................................................................... 120 Feeling .............................................................................................................................................................. 120 Association ....................................................................................................................................................... 120

Registration Requirements ................................................................................................................................... 121 Boundaries............................................................................................................................................................ 121

Multi-family Dwellings ............................................................................................................................................... 121 Description ............................................................................................................................................................ 121 Significance .......................................................................................................................................................... 121

Criterion A ......................................................................................................................................................... 121 Criterion B ......................................................................................................................................................... 122 Criterion C ......................................................................................................................................................... 122 Criterion D ......................................................................................................................................................... 122

Integrity ................................................................................................................................................................. 123 Location ............................................................................................................................................................ 123 Design ............................................................................................................................................................... 123 Setting ............................................................................................................................................................... 123 Materials ........................................................................................................................................................... 123 Workmanship .................................................................................................................................................... 123 Feeling .............................................................................................................................................................. 123 Association ....................................................................................................................................................... 124


Residential Subdivisions ........................................................................................................................................... 124 Description ............................................................................................................................................................ 124 Types .................................................................................................................................................................... 125

Built on Demand (Custom) Subdivisions .......................................................................................................... 125 FHA-Influenced Subdivisions ........................................................................................................................... 125

Significance .......................................................................................................................................................... 126 Criterion A ......................................................................................................................................................... 126 Criterion B ......................................................................................................................................................... 127 Criterion C ......................................................................................................................................................... 127 Criterion D ......................................................................................................................................................... 127

Integrity ................................................................................................................................................................. 127 Location ............................................................................................................................................................ 127 Design ............................................................................................................................................................... 127 Setting ............................................................................................................................................................... 128 Materials ........................................................................................................................................................... 128 Workmanship .................................................................................................................................................... 128 Feeling .............................................................................................................................................................. 128 Association ....................................................................................................................................................... 128


Section IV: Geographical Data ..................................................................................................................................... 129 Section V: Summary of Identification and Evaluation Methods .................................................................................... 129 Section VI: Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................. 131

Vega Verde Subdivision ........................................................................................................................................... 132

City of Las Vegas Historic Context June 2015 WWII Era Residential Housing in Las Vegas LSD Technical Report No. 145648 v

Biltmore Addition ....................................................................................................................................................... 132 Mayfair Homes Subdivision ...................................................................................................................................... 132 Huntridge Neighborhood ........................................................................................................................................... 132 Beckley Subdivision .................................................................................................................................................. 133 Sebec Acres.............................................................................................................................................................. 133 Eastland Heights Neighborhood ............................................................................................................................... 133 Charleston Square Neighborhood ............................................................................................................................ 133 West Las Vegas ........................................................................................................................................................ 134

References ................................................................................................................................................................... 135

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Residential properties currently present within Sebec Acres. .......................................................................... 31 Table 2. Residential properties within the Vega Verde Addition built between 1940 and 1942. .................................... 56 Table 3. Build dates for buildings currently located within the Biltmore Addition. .......................................................... 67 Table 4. Build dates for single family residences currently located within the Mayfair Addition. ................................... 93

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Subdivisions within the city of Las Vegas that were constructed during the WWII era..................................... 2 Figure 2. Loan volume by FHA insurance program. ....................................................................................................... 12 Figure 3. Plat of the original townsite of Las Vegas (also known as the McWilliams Townsite), ca. 1905 .................... 15 Figure 4. 1905 map of Clark’s Las Vegas Townsite. ...................................................................................................... 15 Figure 5. 1950 Pioneer Title Map of the City of Las Vegas showing the Grandview, Fairview, and Pioneer Heights Subdivisions outlined in blue .......................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 6. Pioneer Title Map of the City of Las Vegas, ca. 1950, with Blocks 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 of the Grandview Addition outlined in blue. ................................................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 7. Street map of the BMI plant area, date unknown. ........................................................................................... 22 Figure 8. Housing conditions near the BMI plant, date unknown. .................................................................................. 22 Figure 9. Photograph of the Basic Townsite with the BMI plant in the distance, ca. 1942. ........................................... 23 Figure 10. Beckley Addition to the city of Las Vegas, as platted in April 1941. ............................................................. 27 Figure 11. The Beckley Subdivision as it appears today................................................................................................ 28 Figure 12. Sebec Acres, as platted in August 1942. ...................................................................................................... 30 Figure 13. William Richard Smith, ca. 1906. .................................................................................................................. 31 Figure 14. Sebec Acres as it appears today .................................................................................................................. 34 Figure 15. Plat No. 1 of the Eastland Heights neighborhood, amended on February 25, 1942. ................................... 35 Figure 16. Eastland Heights Tract No. 2, filed on December 5, 1945. ........................................................................... 39 Figure 17. Eastland Heights Tract No. 3, filed on May 20, 1957. ................................................................................... 41 Figure 18. Eastland Heights No. 4, filed on August 17, 1959. ....................................................................................... 42 Figure 19. Eastland Heights neighborhood as it appears today. ................................................................................... 44 Figure 20. Charleston Square Tract No. 1, platted on July 11, 1945. ............................................................................ 45 Figure 21. Charleston Square Tract No. 2, platted on July 26, 1948. ............................................................................ 48 Figure 22. Charleston Square Tract No. 3, platted on March 22, 1949. ........................................................................ 49 Figure 23. Charleston Square Tract No. 4, platted on August 23, 1949. ....................................................................... 50 Figure 24. Charleston Square as it appears today. ........................................................................................................ 52 Figure 25. Vega Verde Addition, as platted in April 1941. ............................................................................................. 54 Figure 26. Aerial photograph showing development within the Vega Verde Addition, ca. 1945. Charleston Boulevard is visible along the right edge of the photograph ............................................................................................................... 57 Figure 27. Amended plat (Tract 2) of the Vega Verde Addition, as platted in December 1942. .................................... 58 Figure 28. Vega Verde as it appears today. ................................................................................................................... 60

City of Las Vegas Historic Context June 2015 WWII Era Residential Housing in Las Vegas LSD Technical Report No. 145648 vi

Figure 29. Biltmore Addition to the city of Las Vegas, as platted by Biltmore Homes, Inc. on December 21, 1941...... 62 Figure 30. 1942 advertisement for the Biltmore Addition. .............................................................................................. 63 Figure 31. Biltmore Addition Annex No. 1, as platted on March 4, 1942. ...................................................................... 64 Figure 32. Biltmore Addition Annex No. 2, as platted on May 4, 1942. .......................................................................... 65 Figure 33. Biltmore Addition Annex No. 3, as platted on May 4, 1942. .......................................................................... 66 Figure 34. Biltmore Addition as it appears today. ........................................................................................................... 69 Figure 35. Huntridge Subdivision Tract No. 1, as platted on December 12, 1941. ........................................................ 71 Figure 36. Huntridge Subdivision Tract No. 2, as platted on February 17, 1942. .......................................................... 72 Figure 37. Huntridge Subdivision Tract No. 3, as platted on October 20, 1942. ............................................................ 73 Figure 38. Huntridge Subdivision Tract No. 4, as platted on October 20, 1942. ............................................................ 74 Figure 39. Huntridge Subdivision Tract No. 5, as platted on December 21, 1942. ........................................................ 75 Figure 40. Photograph showing homes constructed by the Realty Development Co. on Charleston Boulevard. ......... 76 Figure 41. Advertisement for the Huntridge Neighborhood appearing in the January 26, 1943 edition of the Las Vegas Evening Review Journal targeted towards workers in the defense industry. ................................................................. 77 Figure 42. Advertisement for the Huntridge Neighborhood appearing in a December 1943 edition of the Las Vegas Evening Review Journal. ................................................................................................................................................ 78 Figure 43. June 1944 advertisement for the Huntridge Neighborhood. ......................................................................... 79 Figure 44. Advertisement for the Huntridge Neighborhood appearing in the November 24, 1943 edition of the Reno Gazette. .......................................................................................................................................................................... 79 Figure 45. Huntridge Neighborhood as it appears today. .............................................................................................. 82 Figure 46. Aerial photograph showing development the Huntridge Neighborhood, ca. 1949........................................ 84 Figure 47. Mayfair Tract No. 1, as platted on October 16, 1941 .................................................................................... 86 Figure 48. Advertisement for the Mayfair Addition appearing in the March 16, 1942 edition of the Las Vegas-Review Journal. ........................................................................................................................................................................... 87 Figure 49. Mayfair Tract No. 2, as platted on May 30, 1942 .......................................................................................... 89 Figure 50. Mayfair Tract No. 3, as platted on April 3, 1942. ........................................................................................... 90 Figure 51. Mayfair Homes Subdivision as it appears today. .......................................................................................... 91 Figure 52. Carver Park, date unknown ........................................................................................................................... 96 Figure 53. Mr. Robert C. Williams, his wife Rosie, and their children Theodore, Cleopatra, Roscoe, Clarice, and Yvonne—taken on October 12, 1943. ............................................................................................................................ 97 Figure 54. Housing conditions in Westside Las Vegas, ca. 1942. ................................................................................. 98 Figure 55. Aerial photograph of the Marble Manor public housing project, ca. 1952. .................................................... 99 Figure 56. FHA’s depiction of how to achieve variation among small houses through varying material selection and building orientation........................................................................................................................................................ 101 Figure 57. Ed W. Clark, date unknown. ........................................................................................................................ 106 Figure 58. Cahlan family photograph, with Al E. Cahlan seated at center, date unknown. ......................................... 108

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 1. 1610 Ferrell Street, constructed within Sebec Acres ca. 1940. .............................................................. 32 Photograph 2. 3040 W. Vegas Drive, constructed within Sebec Acres in 1948. ........................................................... 32 Photograph 3. 3909 E. Mountain Trail, constructed within the Eastland Heights Neighborhood in 1940 ...................... 36 Photograph 4. 3900 Vegas Drive, located within the Eastland Heights Neighborhood. ................................................ 37 Photograph 5. 3808 W. Vegas Drive, constructed within the Eastland Heights Neighborhood in 1944. ....................... 38 Photograph 6. 1703 Primrose Path, constructed within the Eastland Heights Neighborhood in 1945. ......................... 38 Photograph 7. 4067 Melody Lane, an example of a home constructed within Tract No. 2 of the Eastland Heights Neighborhood between 1949 and 1950. ........................................................................................................................ 40 Photograph 8. 1224 Chapman Drive, an example of a single-family, Ranch style home constructed within Tract No. 1 of the Charleston Square Neighborhood in 1947. .......................................................................................................... 47 Photograph 9. 1219 S. Sixteenth Street, example of a multi-family dwelling constructed within Tract No. 1 of the Charleston Square Neighborhood in 1947. .................................................................................................................... 47

City of Las Vegas Historic Context June 2015 WWII Era Residential Housing in Las Vegas LSD Technical Report No. 145648 vii

Photograph 10. 1141 S. Sixth Street in the Vega Verde Addition of the John S. Park Historic District constructed in 1940. ............................................................................................................................................................................... 55 Photograph 11. 1206 S. Seventh Street, example of a Ranch style house in the Vega Verde Addition constructed in 1948. ............................................................................................................................................................................... 61 Photograph 12. 1235 S. Ninth Street, an example of a Ranch style house in the Vega Verde Addition constructed in 1947. ............................................................................................................................................................................... 61 Photograph 13. 105 Palm Lane within the Biltmore Addition constructed in 1942. ....................................................... 68 Photograph 14. 638 N. Fourth Street within the Biltmore Addition, constructed in 1943. .............................................. 68 Photograph 15. 1018 Yucca Avenue within the Tract No. 1 of the Huntridge Neighborhood, constructed in 1942. ..... 80 Photograph 16. 1034 Franklin Avenue within Tract No. 5 of the Huntridge Neighborhood, constructed in 1944.......... 81 Photograph 17. 1141 Francis Avenue within the Tract No. 2 of the Huntridge Neighborhood, constructed in 1944. ... 81 Photograph 18. Circle Park as it appears today. ............................................................................................................ 85 Photograph 19. Circle Park as it appears today. ............................................................................................................ 85 Photograph 20. 228 N. Seventeenth Street within Tract No. 3 of the Mayfair Subdivision, constructed in 1943. ......... 92 Photograph 21. 210 Spencer Street within the Tract No. 2 of the Mayfair Subdivision, constructed in 1942. ............... 92

City of Las Vegas Historic Context April 2015 WWII Era Residential Housing in Las Vegas LSD Technical Report No. 145648 1

INTRODUCTION

The city of Las Vegas requested that Logan Simpson prepare a comprehensive historic context for

neighborhoods and subdivisions constructed in suburban Las Vegas during the World War II (WWII) era. The

context will serve as a planning tool to be used by the Department of Planning, the Historic Preservation

Commission, and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as part of their continued effort to

document and evaluate the eligibility of neighborhoods within the city for inclusion in the National Register of

Historic Places (NRHP).

Residential subdivision development in the United States (U.S.) was generally limited during the period

between 1940 and 1945 due to a lack of available funding as well as construction materials reserved for

military use, as the Federal government devoted resources to the war effort. Prior to the housing crisis

created during the war, President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA)

under the umbrella of the National Housing Act (NHA) legislation which passed in 1934. The agency’s role

was to provide an incentive for private developers to construct new subdivisions. Rather than provide loans

or subsidies for housing, the FHA provided insurance on two types of mortgage loans—those for the repair,

remodeling, and redecorating of existing structures (referred to as Title I of the NHA) and those for the

construction of new buildings (or Title II of the act). In 1938, an amendment to Title II of the act was passed

in order to encourage the development of “small homes.” The FHA allowed for insurance on mortgages up to

90 percent of the property value for owner-occupied homes, whereas the former Title II guidelines limited

insurance to 80 percent. This new Title II program was limited to maximum loan amounts of $5,400 but it

served as a great stimulus to the housing construction sector.

World War II (WWII) began in Europe in 1939 and the U.S. began ramping up production of materials to

support allied forces in 1940. Certain areas within the country, such as Las Vegas, became centers for war

time production creating population booms and concomitant housing shortages. One of the federal

responses to this crisis was enactment of the Title VI amendment to the NHA in 1941. This amendment

authorized the FHA to insure mortgages up to 90 percent of the home value on one- to four-unit dwellings for

both owner-occupied and builder-owned properties in locations defined as “critical defense areas.” Las

Vegas was designated a critical defense area in June 1941 which facilitated the development of new

residential subdivisions.

Three Title VI neighborhoods have been previously identified through survey in the city and include the

Huntridge, Biltmore, and Mayfair Neighborhoods. The Vega Verde subdivision was also previously identified

as a FHA Title II development by the city during preparation of a NRHP nomination for the John S. Park

Neighborhood. Logan Simpson identified four additional neighborhoods through archival research. These

neighborhoods include the Beckley Subdivision (1941), Sebec Acres (1941), Eastland Heights (1942), and

Charleston Square (1945). With the exception of the Charleston Square Neighborhood, which was initially

developed to qualify for FHA Title II financing, the remaining neighborhoods are examples of “built-on-

demand” or custom subdivisions developed by private investors during the WWII era. Charleston Square was

converted to a custom subdivision as the costs for housing construction outpaced the guidelines set forth by

the FHA. The locations of these subdivisions are shown on Figure 1.


Figure 1. Subdivisions within the city of Las Vegas that were constructed during the WWII era. The subdivision boundaries depicted on this map conform to the historic plat boundaries, which are in some cases slightly different than the boundaries currently recognized by the Clark County Assessor.

City of Las Vegas Historic Context June 2015 WWII Era Residential Housing in Las Vegas LSD Technical Report No. 145648 3 3

This document includes three historic contexts which are used to frame the development of custom

neighborhoods and Title II and Title VI developments within Las Vegas during the WWII era. These include:

1) Growth of Las Vegas and WWII-era Subdivision Development, which examines the factors which led

to population growth in Las Vegas during the war and the resultant response of the government and

private developers in supplying housing for the influx of people.

2) Racial Segregation and the Development of West Las Vegas during WWII, which discusses the

evolution of concepts of race in Las Vegas and how this evolution impacted housing opportunities for

persons of color; and

3) Residential Architecture of Las Vegas during WWII – this context examines the type of residential

architectural styles which developed at the national level due to broad thematic trends and how these

styles manifested in Las Vegas.

Property registration requirements for individual properties including single-family and multi-family dwellings

and the subdivisions as a whole follow the historic contexts. Lastly, the report identifies geographical

boundaries and provides a summary of identification and evaluation methods and references consulted as

part of this project.

SECTION I: RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT IN THE EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY

According to urbanist Marc Weiss, the elements of what have been ascribed to post-war suburbanization in

the U.S. were actually in place before the beginning of WWII. The development of new transportation

methods in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries facilitated suburbanization, as first railroads—

followed by streetcars and automobiles—made transit between city centers and peripheral areas possible

(Ames and McClelland 2002). These new peripheral areas could be subdivided to create lower density,

single family residences with lawns and green spaces (Ames and McClelland 2002). In the early years of

subdivision planning, developers platted streets and individual lots and made limited infrastructure

improvements; the task of home building, however, was left to the buyer (Ames and McClelland 2002). As

there was no requirement to construct houses within a certain time frame, developers would purchase

multiple lots within a subdivision for speculative purposes—a practice that Weiss (1989) argues not only

increased real estate prices, but also left areas within neighborhoods vacant.

By the 1920s, many residential developers began to consider the potential for additional revenue through the

direct construction of homes within their subdivisions. While initially this movement began with developers

constructing model homes, a new era of community building soon dawned in which developers platted large

subdivisions, made infrastructure improvements such as streets, sewer systems, and utilities, and

collaborated with architects, landscape architects, and engineers to design houses, plan green space and

parks, and construct community schools and churches (Ames and McClelland 2002). These “community

builders” pressed for uniformity through deed restrictions and zoning (Weiss 1989). As Commerce Secretary

in 1920, Herbert Hoover created the Division of Building and Housing within the National Bureau of

Standards in an attempt to bring uniformity to suburban development. Appointed under the Division of

Building and Housing, in 1921 this committee recommended the establishment of zoning acts which could be


adopted at the local level to regulate the development of lands and buildings (Knack et.al. 1996). Small-scale

land developers pushed back against such regulations, however, and a general outcry against the potential

power of local zoning boards ensued throughout the U.S. (Knack et.al 1996; Weiss 1989).

In addition to speculative land purchases, the lack of uniformity in subdivision planning and home building

practices and the types of available mortgage financing in the early twentieth century also created instability

in the American housing industry (Ames and McClelland 2002). Mortgage financing in the decades leading

up to the Great Depression consisted primarily of high-interest, short term loans, with many states placing

maximum first mortgage loan-to-property value ratios between 50 and 60 percent. These first mortgages had

short terms—typically three years—with monthly interest-only payments and a balloon payment due at the

end of the term. As most borrowers could not afford to pay the balance due at the end of this period, they

relied on the opportunity to refinance their mortgages. Also, as many buyers did not have the funds to cover

the additional 40 to 50 percent of the property values required for purchase, they often took on second and

third mortgages with interest rates as high as 18 to 20 percent (Semer et.al. 1985; White 2009). Following

the onset of the Great Depression in 1929, the financial reserves of savings and loan and broader mortgage

financing companies dwindled, forcing these companies—when at all possible—to call in their mortgage

debts. With unemployment rising in the depressed U.S. economy, many homeowners were unable to meet

their mortgage obligations and foreclosures skyrocketed (Mason 1980).

The Response of the Federal Government to the Nation’s Housing Crisis

During the Great Depression, Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt sought to improve

the U.S. housing crisis by enacting policies designed to spur individual homeownership and reduce the

increasing number of home foreclosures. During his presidency (1929–1933), Hoover worked with industry

experts to explore policy changes at the federal level which would stimulate private lending. These changes,

involving federal assistance and regulation of residential housing financing were subsequently supported by

President Roosevelt and incorporated into his New Deal legislation, thereby dramatically altering

development of American housing for the remainder of the twentieth century.

Hoover is credited as the first U.S. President to promote homeownership as an essential American value;

however, he took a relatively moderate approach to intervention into the depressed housing market,

deferring to private industry to solve the problem (Hoover Institute Archives 1998; Semer et.al. 1985). In

1930, Hoover called for a Conference on Home Building and Home Ownership to study the nation’s housing

issues (Rome 2001). The following year more than 540 industry professionals volunteered to participate in

the conference and broke out into 31 different committees. Twenty-five of the committees were fact-finding in

nature and were charged with preparing reports and recommendations on a range of topics—from city

planning and zoning to finance and home management. The six additional committees served a coordination

function and drew from each of the 25 fact-finding committees’ recommendations to develop seven broadly

themed reports on technological development, legislation and administration, standards and objectives,

research, organizations programs, and education and service (Hoover Institute Archives 1998). The following

year, a general conference was held in Washington, D.C., in which more than 3,600 people were invited by

the President to review the reports and recommendations of the 31 different committees. The results of this

second conference were published in eleven volumes which included: “(1) planning for residential districts,


(2) home finance and taxation, (3) slums, large-scale housing and decentralization, (4) home ownership,

income and types of dwellings, (5) house design construction and equipment, (6) negro housing, (7) farm

and village housing, (8) housing and the community, home repair remodeling, (9) household management

and kitchens, (10) home making, home furnishing and information services, and (11) housing objectives and

programs” (Gries and Ford 1932). Many of the suggestions put forth in these volumes were later

incorporated into President Roosevelt’s New Deal housing legislation.

The conference also resulted in the enactment of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act of 1932, which

operationalized President Hoover’s vision of a system of banks that would function in a similar nature to the

modern Federal Reserve. With the support of the Finance and Taxation committee, he introduced the

proposed legislation at the second conference of 3,600 attendees. The proposal received unanimous

support, thereby ensuring its eventual passage in Congress. In addition to providing low interest loans to

mortgage lenders, the legislation created a system of reserve banks under the aegis of the new Federal

Home Loan Bank Board which was authorized to lend up to $125,000,000 to savings and loan companies as

well as home financing companies. Although intended to lower the cost of homeownership, the Act and

associated Federal Home Loan Bank Board ultimately failed to create any lasting changes to the rapidly

declining real estate market, and by 1933, more than 1.5 million homes in the U.S. had either been

foreclosed upon or were in default (pre-foreclosure) (Mason 1981; 1982:6).

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1933 he sought to reduce the growing number of home

foreclosures through providing additional resources to the existing Home Owner’s Loan Corporation (HOLC),

an agency created by congressional legislation prior to his presidency in 1933. The HOLC, housed under the

Federal Home Loan Bank Board, raised money through the sale of bonds and provided for the refinancing of

short term mortgages with fixed rate loans at 3 percent interest, amortized over longer periods of time than

traditional loans (Mason 1982). The program proved very successful, and by 1934, the agency had assisted

in the refinance of nearly 500,000 home mortgages with another 500,000 in progress (Mason 1982).

Establishment of the NHA and Creation of the FHA

Despite the impressive lending statistics achieved by the HOLC, the passage of the NHA on June 27, 1934

would cast a much broader and lasting impact upon the American housing sector in terms of financing

guidelines as well as subdivision planning and home building practice. In the year preceding the passage of

the NHA, the number of new homes constructed in the United States had fallen to 93,000 units, roughly one-

tenth the number constructed in 1925 during the peak of the nation’s housing boom. The lack of available

financing not only resulted in a decline in housing starts, but also a lack of funds for home improvements.

Resulting declines in construction activity had a drastic impact upon construction workers as well as those

employed in the construction supply trades. President Roosevelt’s push for the passage of housing

legislation thus satisfied his short term goal of job creation while achieving the long term goal of stabilizing

the housing finance industry (Semer et.al. 1985).

When the NHA passed in 1934, its stated purpose was “to encourage improvement in housing standards and

conditions and to provide a system of mutual mortgage insurance” (Colean 1944:265). In order to carry out

this directive, the legislation established the FHA. The FHA sought to stimulate the housing market by


offering loan insurance to lenders on construction and purchase loans, as well as short term home

improvement loans. The insurance was to provide the lender confidence that they would be able to recapture

a significant portion of their investment if a borrower defaulted on his/her mortgage obligation. This system of

mortgage insurance was designed to be self-sustaining, supported by mortgage insurance premiums

charged on each loan (Semer et.al. 1985). The agency also sought to standardize lending requirements as

well as home construction and neighborhood development standards in order to ensure the stability of home

values and the likelihood that buyers would repay their debts. The establishment of mortgage insurance and

the standardization of lending requirements for the first time resulted in lending across state lines, as

financial institutions now had the assurance that loans made out of state would have commensurate terms

with those loans made locally (Semer et.al. 1985).

The headquarters of the FHA was located in Washington, D.C. As it was soon recognized that the

administration would need a presence at the local level, the country was divided into 12 regions—each under

the management of a regional director—and at least one underwriting office was established within each

state. States of a larger size and/or population were typically assigned more than one field office. The State

of New York, for example, had three field offices located in Albany, Buffalo, and New York City, while the less

populated state of Nevada had one office, located in Reno (Federal Housing Administration 1934). As the

program grew, so too did the number of field offices, so that by end of the decade there were FHA offices in

103 cities throughout the U.S. Nevada continued to be served by one office in Reno, however (Federal

Housing Administration 1940).

Title I and Title II of the NHA

The imperative of the FHA was to spur growth in the beleaguered construction and home financing

industries. In order to stimulate this growth, the agency was endowed with the capital to provide mortgage

insurance that would, in effect, protect mortgage lenders against potential losses from foreclosure. Whereas

Title I of the act provided insurance on home improvement loans, Title II enabled the agency to provide

mortgage insurance for the construction of new single- and multi-family dwellings (Weintraub and

Tough 1942). Although the role of the FHA was strictly to insure mortgages and no direct funding was

provided, lenders were more willing to extend mortgage credit to new customers with a federal loan

guarantee (Weintraub and Tough 1942). The Title I program guaranteed home improvement loans on single

family residences up to $2,500 on 3-year loan terms and up to $10,000 on multi-family homes with a 7-year

term. In comparison, Section 203 of the Title II program insured mortgage loan amounts up to $16,000 at

80 percent loan-to-value over a 20-year period (United States Congress Senate Committee on Banking and

Currency 1948). The FHA was also able to offer “forward commitments” to builders of subdivisions. These

commitments assured developers that, with approved subdivision planning, mortgage financing would be

available for the buyers of the homes they constructed (Mason 1980). Section 207 of the Title II program

insured mortgages on rental housing or group housing projects for low-income persons developed and

operated by federal, state, or private limited dividend corporations (Semer et.al 1985). The Section 207 rental

housing program, however, never represented a large portion of the FHA program. In 1935, the first full year

of the agency’s operation, the FHA provided insurance on roughly $319,000,000 of mortgage debt. This

number was broken down into roughly $223,000,000 in Title I loans, $93,000,000 in Section 203 Title II

loans, and $2,000,000 in Section 207 Title II Loans (Federal Housing Administration 1940). While this figure


of $319,000,000 may seem impressive, this amount represented just 6 percent of the total mortgage market

(Grebler 1953). As the program continued to grow in the 1930s, the amount of mortgages insured under the

Title II Section 203 program began to far surpass those insured under either the Title I or Title II Section 207

programs, reaching roughly $434,000,000 in 1937, as compared to $10,000,000 for Section 207 loans and

$60,000,000 for Title I loans (Federal Housing Administration 1940).

In 1938, Congress amended the Title II Section 203 program to include a “small-home” program to stimulate

lending for moderately priced housing. The “small-home” program provided insurance on single-family

residences up to a $5,400 loan amount and a 90 percent loan-to-property value ratio on newly constructed

housing, while the original Title II insurance continued to provide insurance on loan amounts up to $16,000 at

80 percent loan-to-property value ratio. Additionally, the new guidelines extended the maximum loan term to

25 years and relaxed credit rating evaluations for borrowers (Sies and Silver 1996; United States Congress

Senate Committee on Banking and Currency 1948). With the easing of these guidelines the amount of FHA

insured loans, as a percentage of the total market, markedly increased. In 1937, FHA insured loans totaled

roughly 18 percent of all mortgage loans. The following year, the percentage of FHA loans rose to 30 percent

and remained at roughly 35 percent in the years leading into the U.S. entry into WWII (Grebler 1953). The

popularity of the 1938 amendments as a segment of the Title II Section 203 program is also demonstrated by

the increase in the number of loans with longer mortgage terms and higher loan-to-value ratios. In 1938,

roughly 30 percent of FHA mortgage-insured loans adopted the new 25-year term; by 1940, this percentage

had increased to 64 percent. Additionally, roughly 67 percent of FHA insured Title II mortgages were in the

86 to 90 percent loan-to-value ratio with only 8 percent at less than 76 percent loan-to-value in that year.

Because the new FHA 90 percent loan-to-value ratio allowance was restricted to new home construction, the

balance of FHA financing as a whole shifted towards new construction. In 1936, new home financing

represented just 40 percent of the total mortgage loans insured by FHA. By 1940, however, the percentage

of insured mortgages on new home construction had increased to 80 percent. In the state of Nevada, for

example, the number of new homes insured by the FHA totaled 222, while the number of existing homes

insured totaled just 23 (Federal Housing Administration 1940). Although the FHA did not provide insurance

for all home loans, the standards it established with regard to mortgage terms, subdivision planning, and

residential construction influenced the entire housing industry.

Design Standards of the FHA’s Land Planning Division

In addition to developing mortgage underwriting guidelines, the FHA also created subdivision planning and

home construction guidelines to ensure sound economic investments. Initially, this task was relegated to an

understaffed technical department; however, following the 1938 amendment to the NHA, the FHA created a

formal Land Planning Division to which Seward H. Mott was appointed director (Stabile 2000). Interestingly,

the antecedents to the concepts put forth by the FHA Land Planning Division can be found in reports

authored by the City Planning and Zoning, Subdivision Layout, Utilities for House, and Landscape and

Planning and Planning Committees organized as part of President Hoover’s Conference on Home Building

and Home Ownership. In 1932, these committees collectively published a volume entitled “Planning for

Residential Districts,” which emphasized the importance of city planning and called for municipal oversight of

subdivision development, as well as an understanding of the relationship between the individual home and

the broader community (Gries and Ford 1932). Reports contained within the volume provided detailed


guidance on subdivision design including site planning, layout in terms of curved street patterns and housing,

and the need for schools, parks, libraries, and churches in order to avoid what they referred to as the “hasty

rectangular,” or gridiron pattern subdivision. These suggested standards formed the basis for later FHA

guidelines which emphasized the importance of curvilinear street layouts, open space, and uniformity in

housing lots and home setbacks (Gries and Ford 1932; Federal Housing Administration 1938).

The new 1938 Land Planning Division of the FHA was headquartered in Washington D.C. with field offices

located in the state FHA underwriting offices (Stabile 2000). The headquarters of the Land Planning Division

issued technical bulletins outlining “desirable standards.” One such bulletin published in 1938 and entitled

“Planning Profitable Neighborhoods,” outlined guidelines for zoning, infrastructure development, and

planning in relationship to accessibility, site topography, street layout, lot size, and building placement

(Federal Housing Administration 1938). The guidelines emphasized the need to eliminate sharp corners and

dangerous intersections. Additionally, the incorporation of long blocks was promoted in order to avoid

superfluous streets. As was recommended in the 1932 “Planning for Residential Districts” report which came

out of President Hoover’s Conference on Home Building and Home Ownership, these standards resulted in

the promotion of curvilinear rather than rectilinear grid subdivisions. The ubiquity of automobile ownership

among suburban households was also codified with the FHA’s favor of wider lot size to accommodate on-site

parking (Federal Housing Administration 1938; Ames and McClelland 2002).

The FHA’s regulations were premised on the belief that developers needed to look at their subdivisions as

cohesive communities rather than simply individual lots for sale and development (Stabile 2000;

Weiss 1989). This type of development required a more comprehensive and long-term approach to

neighborhood planning that went beyond subdividing land and providing basic infrastructure, as had often

been the case with many small-scale developers in the years before the Great Depression. With the

prompting of the FHA, the concept of “community planning” began to take hold in the broader residential

development market (Ames and McClelland 2002).

FHA oversight of subdivision planning was implemented at the state field office level. Consultants in the

planning office were required to approve all development plans for raw, undeveloped land. The developer

was able to get pre-commitments for guarantees of loan insurance for home buyers by submitting an

application with the subdivision plan to a mortgage lender. The lender then forwarded the application to the

state/local FHA office. Architects, landscape architects, and engineers served as in-house FHA consultants

and could make recommendations for alterations to a submitted plan in order to achieve approval

(Stabile 2000). Upon approval, the FHA set the appraised value of the homes within the subdivision and

gave the mortgage lender notice that credit-eligible buyers could qualify for FHA insurance. FHA consultants

also inspected homes upon their completion to ensure they met the agency’s building requirements

(Stabile 2000).

The FHA approval process inherently favored large-scale developers who had the staff to work through the

necessary steps and could benefit from larger economies of scale. Urbanist Marc Weiss also notes that the

FHA guidelines put second-rate developers “…out of business by imposing publicly advertised development

standards and by denying mortgage insurance on properties located in subdivisions that failed to meet these


standards” (Weiss 1989:150). The FHA subdivision planning principles became de facto industry standards

so that even those builders who developed higher-end subdivisions, which exceeded the maximum allowable

loan amounts to qualify for FHA insurance, followed them as a matter of practice.

As part of the drive to preserve the long term stability of the community—and in turn property values—the

FHA also endorsed deed restrictions/covenants to restrict objectionable changes to properties as well as to

prohibit “undesirable” residents which included persons of “lower classes” and those classified as minorities

(McGann 2013). The Home Owner’s Loan Corporation had previously established “residential security maps”

for 239 locations in the U.S. in which areas of lower income and higher minority resident populations were

coded red to indicate their “instability.” The FHA perpetuated this policy, which was later termed “redlining.”

Borrowers living in these redlined areas were nearly universally unable to qualify for FHA-insured

mortgages—which as time progressed—would create a de facto form of housing segregation

(Highsmith 2009; Squires 1992).

Federally Funded Defense Housing Programs

WWII began in Europe in 1939, and by mid-1940, the U.S. was in full-scale production of arms and supplies

for allied forces as well as in the process of increasing its own military defense capabilities. Certain areas of

the country, particularly in the west, became loci for military activities and supply production, drawing large

numbers of workers from other regions of the country. It is estimated that 8 million Americans, largely from

rural states and older industrial areas, relocated to new areas of military production to the west of the

Mississippi River during the war era (Malone and Etulain 1989). San Francisco, San Diego, and Los Angeles

were already the sites of naval bases and became centers of shipbuilding with San Francisco drawing more

than 500,000 workers alone. Many military industrial companies also located in other western cities such as

Denver where the company Remington Rand employed roughly 20,000 people in its munitions factory, in

Phoenix where the Goodyear Aircraft, AiResearch, and Alcoa companies drew more than 13,000 workers

who constructed airplane parts and manufactured aluminum products, and the Las Vegas area, where Basic

Magnesium employed 15,000 persons in the construction and operation of it magnesium processing factory

(Luckingham 1989; Malone and Etulain 1989). Military bases and military training installations also became

dominant features in the southwest where the government could take advantage of the predominantly clear

weather and large existing tracts of open federal land (Hirsch and Mohl 1993).

The western cities which became centers of military development grappled with having sufficient housing for

workers. Many cities conducted “share-your-home” campaigns, but housing capacity soon reached its limits

(Luckingham 1989). A number of federal agencies were given funding to help provide housing in these

defense areas, the first of which was the United States Housing Authority. Authorized in June 1940, the

“Navy Speed-up Bill” allowed the Housing Authority to assist the War and Navy Departments in developing

housing, either through technical assistance or the direct construction of homes. Recognizing the immense

undertaking this level of housing development would require, the following month, the Council on National

Defense created the office of Defense Housing Coordinator to coordinate between the various federal

agencies involved in defense housing and evaluate the need for additional housing development. Before a

community could be deemed in need of government funded housing, a survey was conducted to estimate the

number of workers who were required to work in the military related industries; the existing number of vacant


rooms/dwellings available for rent; and the capacity of the private industry to meet any gaps in housing

(Veenstra 1941).

In August 1940, President Roosevelt authorized emergency funding for the Reconstruction Finance

Corporation to finance the construction of defense housing, with loans issued by the corporation to be

insured by the FHA (Veenstra 1941). In October of that year, Roosevelt established the Defense Homes

Corporation to spur residential construction in defense areas where private development was not keeping up

with demand. Also in October, Congress passed the Lanham Act—named for bill sponsor Representative

Fritz Lanham—which authorized the expenditure of $150,000,000 disbursed through a number of Federal

agencies to alleviate the war-time housing shortage through the construction of rental housing

(Veenstra 1941; Wendt 1962). Housing built under the Lanham Act was limited to enlisted men and defense

industry workers and their families. As the funds for construction were distributed to a number of government

agencies, the design, quality, and speed of construction varied greatly between different developments

(Peterson 2013).

There was considerable concern on the part of private developers and builders in the housing industry that

housing directly constructed by government agencies would negatively impact the private housing industry

(Mason 1982). In response, the Office of the Defense Housing Coordinator specifically noted that

government funded housing would only be constructed when the private sector could not meet local needs,

or when private development was not economically feasible. For example, it was argued that areas

comprised predominantly of low-wage defense workers would need government funded housing as these

developments targeted for low-income residents would not be profitable for private developers

(Veenstra 1941). Furthermore, the Defense Housing Coordinator argued, the Lanham Act developments

were restricted to rental housing and would therefore not impact the single family housing market.

Initial construction under the Lanham Act focused on permanent housing; however, as construction material

restrictions progressed, and to allay continued private market concern over the effects of public housing on

the real estate industry, the construction shifted to temporary “demountable” housing which could be

removed after the war’s conclusion (Doan 1997). Contrary to private developers’ fears, during the period

between 1940 and 1941 the actual level of government constructed housing projects, broadly enmeshed in

bureaucracy, represented only 12 percent of the broader housing market (Mason 1982). Despite this low

percentage, interest groups, such as the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and private developers,

continued to call upon the federal government to stimulate the private housing sector which came about

through the passage of the Title VI amendment to the NHA.

Title VI Amendment to the NHA (1941)

In the hopes of stimulating the development of low cost defense housing by the private market, President

Roosevelt signed the Title VI amendment to the NHA on March 26, 1941, creating the Section 603 housing

program (Veenstra 1941). This measure stipulated that the FHA would provide mortgage insurance for the

construction of homes in locations that were classified as “critical defense areas,” which included growing

western cities such as Denver, Phoenix, Oakland, and Las Vegas. In total, 146 such defense housing areas


were designated in 41 states throughout the country and the number of locations was increased to 270 by

September 1941 (Bunyak, Simmons and Simmons 2011; Sies and Silver 1996).

The maximum allowable cost for Section 603 housing ranged from $4,000 for a single-family dwelling to

$10,500 for a four-unit dwelling, or roughly $64,380 to $168,999 today based on inflation (U.S. Bureau of

Labor Statistics 2015). In order to qualify for housing, defense workers were required to demonstrate that

they earned less than $3,000 annually (Sies and Silver 1996). Similar to FHA Title II, Section 203 insurance

on small homes, Title VI provided insurance on mortgages up to 90 percent of the value of the home,

requiring the purchaser to make a 10 percent down payment. A subsequent modification came about through

the Title VI guidelines which allowed buyers to make installment payments on the down payment amount

over a 30-month period which eased the initial investment requirement (Weintraub and Tough 1942).

Recognizing that many war workers would need to rent homes, rather than purchase them, Title VI insurance

was also extended to mortgages on one- to four-family rental properties (Weintraub and Tough 1942). The

program also differed from Section 203 in that a builder or non-occupant owner could also qualify for the

same 90 percent loan-to-value (Federal Housing Administration 1942).

Title VI financing did not prove immediately successful. By the end of 1941, the new program had insured

roughly $13,000,000 in loans which represented only 1 percent of the total FHA mortgage insurance

commitments made that year (Federal Housing Administration 1942; Weintraub and Tough 1942). Following

the U.S.’ entry into WWII, however, the FHA began to shift its focus to defense housing touting ”a concerted

drive to stimulate that type of privately financed low-cost housing, particularly for rent, which can best meet

the housing needs of war workers in the war industry centers” (Federal Housing Administration 1942:8). This

public shift in FHA’s mission was bolstered by the government’s decision in September of 1941 to restrict the

disbursement of building materials to designated critical defense areas. Additionally, the materials were

reserved only for homes with a sale price of less than $6,000 (Peterson 2013). The FHA noted that “to qualify

for priorities assistance in securing critical materials, a private war housing project must (1) be located within

reasonable distance of the designated Defense Housing Critical Areas; (2) suitable for and intended primarily

for defense workers within those areas; and (3) offered at a sales price or rental within reach of the defense

workers for whom the housing is intended” (Federal Housing Administration 1942:20).

These restrictions in the use of building materials ultimately impacted the number of FHA Title II

developments as well as those developments where builders intended owners to purchase homes with

“conventional” financing. Conventional loans differed from FHA loans in that they were offered by a bank and

not insured by the Federal government. Because the bank took on a greater risk, qualifications for these

types of loans were often more strict, requiring borrowers to put down a larger down payment or have a lower

debt to income ratio in order to qualify. However, conventional loans did not have the same types of

maximum loan amounts as set forth by the FHA and thus often catered to more affluent housing. The

materials restrictions set forth by the government on conventionally financed and FHA Title II developments

therefore limited the ability of developers to construct them. By 1943, Title II financing had become largely

restricted to the refinancing of mortgages on existing housing. Of the total 52,408 homes insured under the

Title II program in that year, only 9,186 insured new construction while the remaining 43,222 insured


refinances of existing homes (Federal Housing Administration 1943). Title I financing utilized for home

improvements, which had remained fairly consistent in the years leading into the war, also experienced a

decline as the emphasis of the FHA shifted to Title VI housing (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Loan volume by FHA insurance program (Image taken from the Annual Report of the Federal Housing Administration published in 1943).

In May 1942, Congress amended Title VI to increase the maximum loan amount for single-family residences

under Section 603 to $5,400 to effectively match the FHA Title II small-home financing limits. Additionally, the

revised legislation created Section 608 to stimulate development of large-scale apartment construction for

defense housing. In response to these changes, FHA Title VI financing applications began to rapidly increase

(Mason 1982; Peterson 2013; Weintraub and Tough 1942). By the close of 1942, FHA Title VI housing

represented 33 percent of the total number of FHA mortgages awarded. The following year, Title VI

significantly outpaced Title II mortgages, reaching 72 percent of the total mortgages, and it remained the

predominant type of FHA insurance issued throughout WWII. In total, the program facilitated the construction

of 335,000 one- to four-family dwellings for war workers during the period between 1941 and 1945 (Federal

Housing Administration 1945; Hansen 1946).


In October 1944, the Federal government removed restrictions on housing construction materials which set

the stage for a dramatic increase in new housing construction (Mason 1982). In order to purchase these

homes, many buyers turned to conventional, non-FHA financing and veterans also took advantage of the

new home loan programs established by the G.I. Bill. In 1946, Title VI was converted to a veteran’s

emergency housing program and the FHA was charged to “prescribe procedures for giving WWII veterans

and hardship cases priority in the purchase or rental of Title VI housing” (The Congressional Research

Service 2004). The following year, Title VI financing was also made available to veterans interested in

permanent purchase of government-owned war housing (The Congressional Research Service 2004). The

FHA authority to issue insurance on mortgages for new construction under Section 603 expired in 1948 and

FHA commitments under Section 608 expired in 1950 (Federal Housing Administration 1952).

Serviceman’s Readjustment Act (1944)

On June 22, 1944, President Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, which became known as

the G.I. Bill of Rights or “G.I. Bill.” The primary purpose of the bill, which consisted of five titles (e.g., Titles I–

V), was to assist returning WWII veterans in the readjustment to civilian life by providing them with a range of

government sponsored benefits. One of the titles—Title III—enabled veterans to secure government “loans

for aid in purchasing or constructing homes and in purchasing farms or business property” (Social Security

Administration 1944). Veterans were not required to pay a premium for these loans, which were overseen by

the Veteran’s Administration (VA) and needed to be applied for within two years of being discharged from the

armed forces (Mitchell 1985). Unlike FHA financing, the new VA financing was not a form of insurance but an

actual guarantee from the federal government to the lender providing the financing. Returning veterans could

qualify for a guarantee of 50 percent of a loan amount, up to a cap of $2,000; or, if the veteran already held a

first mortgage through a government agency, the bill allowed him or her to apply for a second mortgage to be

guaranteed by the government, for up to an additional 20 percent loan-to-value, not to exceed $2,000. This

effectively meant that if a borrower was receiving 80 percent loan-to-value financing on his or her first

mortgage through FHA approved financing, he or she could apply for a second mortgage to cover the

remaining 20 percent of the value, guaranteed by the Administrator of Veterans Affairs, assuming the second

mortgage did not exceed $2,000.

The act further stipulated that the purchase price could not exceed the appraised value of the property

(Social Security Administration 1944). The inflation of materials and labor occurring after the conclusion of

the war problematically drove the value of construction costs higher than could be insured by FHA; this

meant that returning veterans could not qualify for the new housing that was being constructed to meet the

growing need (Mitchell 1985). The housing market also continued to be hampered by the lack of available

building materials so that in cases where veterans were able to obtain credit, there was not sufficient housing

stock for them to buy new homes.

In 1945, Congressional hearings regarding the Title III loan program resulted in the recommendation that the

appraised value of a house should be based upon current market conditions rather than “reasonable normal

value” assigned by the FHA. Congress also passed Public Law 268 in that year, amending the appraisal

process and increasing the maximum first mortgage loan amount from $2,000 to $4,000. Additionally, 25-

year loan terms were made available and the eligibility period for qualifying for the financing was increased


from 2 years to 10 years after discharge (U.S. President’s Commission on Veterans’ Pensions 1985).

Despite these changes to the Title III program, housing production in 1945 continued to remain sluggish,

(amounting to roughly 226,000 units) mainly due to continued shortages in building materials (United States

Bureau of the Census 1949). With return of servicemen and women from overseas, the housing situation in

many cities reached crisis proportion.

In 1946, the Veteran’s Emergency Housing Act was passed to encourage construction projects for low-to-

medium priced housing (Remington 1947). Initially, the post-war developments remained on a small scale.

As materials became increasingly available, developers began to incorporate FHA guidelines into an

“economies of scale” assembly line approach to construction in order to efficiently construct large scale

neighborhoods containing hundreds of affordably priced homes (Finbraaten 2003). In 1946, with the easing

of both construction materials and credit, more than 670,000 housing units were constructed in cities across

the U.S. (U.S. President’s Commission on Veterans’ Pensions 1985).

SECTION II: STATEMENT OF HISTORIC CONTEXTS

Context 1: Growth of Las Vegas and WWII-era Subdivision Development

The natural geography of Las Vegas with its fertile plains and many springs attracted indigenous peoples

such as the Paiute more than a millennium before Euro-American settlement of the area (Moehring and

Green 2005). The first Euro-American attempt to settle the Las Vegas Valley occurred in 1855 when a group

of Mormons established a small fort and mission in the area as part of the Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day

Saints’ broader initiative to settle lands in the desert southwest. This mission, however, was ultimately

abandoned due to disagreements between the settlers and limited opportunities to sustain agriculture

(Moehring and Green 2005). In 1865, the remaining infrastructure of the settlement was acquired by

Octavius Decatur Gass, who re-established “Las Vegas Rancho” as a commercial hub along the Old Spanish

Trail from which to supply goods to mining camps in the area. After Gass defaulted on debts in 1882, the

Rancho was acquired by Archibald and Helen Stewart. Although Archibald died soon thereafter, Helen

continued to operate the ranch until 1902 when she sold the property to Montana Senator William Clark

whose intention was to establish a railroad line connecting Salt Lake City, Utah to Los Angeles, California via

the Las Vegas Valley (Moehring 2000).

William Clark formed the San Pedro, Los Angeles, and Salt Lake Railroad in 1900 and initiated construction

on the portion of the rail line through Las Vegas in 1904. Workers constructed a tent camp to the west of the

railroad tracks which became the nucleus of a small settlement. John T. McWilliams, a surveyor who was

hired by Helen Stewart in 1902 to survey the Rancho land prior to the sale to Clark, acquired 80 acres from

the government, including the railroad construction camp site. After formally surveying the land, he

established the townsite of Las Vegas in 1904 and began speculative sale of the lots (Figure 3).

Concurrently, the Las Vegas Land and Water Company, a subsidiary of the railroad, surveyed its own

townsite on the east side of the railroad tracks which it recorded as “Clark’s Las Vegas Townsite” in 1905

(Figure 4). This second townsite was laid out in 80-foot-wide streets running parallel to the northeast-

southwest railroad alignment, as opposed to McWilliam’s north-south oriented grid. The townsite, bounded

by Main and Fifth Streets (roughly east and west) and Stewart and Garces Avenues (roughly north and


Figure 3. Plat of the original townsite of Las Vegas (also known as the McWilliams Townsite), ca. 1905 (Image courtesy of the UNLV Special Collections Library Las Vegas).

Figure 4. 1905 map of Clark’s Las Vegas Townsite (Image available at the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=FGka484vlAFVpM&tbnid=XeumggOqNRbM1M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://digital.library.unlv.edu/objects/LV_Maps/745&ei=Ql8JUry1MrDwyAGo1YGoDQ&bvm=bv.50500085,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNFDi9u06KihaVlkCSywClPfC3_w7Q&ust=1376432248381040


south) consisted of 1,200 lots (Paher 1971). Blocks adjacent to the north-south aligned Fremont Street were

specifically platted to be shallower to encourage a higher density of commercial development along Fremont.

The centrally located block 20 was reserved for public use; the remaining 25-feet-wide by 140-feet-long lots,

platted on 300-foot-wide by 400-foot-long blocks, were laid out identically facing the east-west aligned roads

(Mooney 2003a) (see Figure 4).

Investors filed more than 3,000 land applications for the 1,200 available lots in Clark’s Las Vegas Townsite,

ultimately resulting in a land auction in May 1905 (Paher 1971). Capitalizing on the remaining investor

demand, astute investor Peter Buol platted a subdivision east of Clark’s townsite prior to the auction and sold

lots in the first “suburb” of Las Vegas. Buck’s Addition, as it was called, followed the pattern of street

orientation established in Clark’s Las Vegas townsite which radiated from the railroad tracks. Buol

subsequently platted the Grandview, Fairview, and Pioneer Heights tracts in 1905 (Figure 5). He broke from

the orientation of previous plats with the Grandview Addition which possessed streets with a nearly true north

to south alignment. The rectilinear Grandview Addition grid of streets would serve as a precedent for the

town’s development to the east (Moehring 2000).

In 1921, William Clark sold his interest in the San Pedro, Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad to the Union

Pacific Railroad Company. In that year, a national general strike by union employees of the Union Pacific

would also have ramifications in Las Vegas as local members of the national shop workers union also

participated. Union Pacific retaliated against Las Vegas union members and sympathizers, by relocating

repair shops significant to the local Las Vegas economy to the town of Caliente (Moehring and Green 2005).

At the same time, the railroad company also refused to make upgrades to the infrastructure it had created

under its umbrella organization, the Las Vegas Land and Water Company (LVL&WC), which further impaired

the growth of the city. Recognizing the need to diversify the economy and break free of the railroad’s

dominance, city leaders began to push for the development of a tourism industry. Initial civic efforts to boost

tourism included improvement of Fifth Street to create a highway route connecting Las Vegas with the

affluent urban center of Los Angeles (Moehring and Green 2005). Fifth Street had been platted as part of the

1909 Clark’s Townsite and ran parallel to the railroad line. In 1926, the road was extended in a southwesterly

direction along South Fifth Street creating U.S. Highway (US) 91 (also known as the Los Angeles Highway).

In this same year, the Western Air Express Company also brought the first air mail service between Las

Vegas and Salt Lake City and Los Angeles (Moehring and Green 2005). Business began to grow in

downtown Las Vegas, as utility services were improved and investments made in hotels and tourist services.

The town experienced significant growth during the period between 1920 and 1930, with population

increasing from 2,304 to 5,100; however, the development of tourism and the undertaking of large federal

projects undertaken during the Great Depression, set Las Vegas on a course of even more dramatic growth

in the period between 1930 and 1940 (Moehring and Green 2005).

Las Vegas during the Depression Era

While the nation writ large began to experience the effects of the Great Depression in 1930, Las Vegas was

poised for growth. In December of 1928, President Calvin Coolidge signed the Boulder Canyon Project Act to


Figure 5. 1950 Pioneer Title Map of the City of Las Vegas showing the Grandview, Fairview, and Pioneer Heights Subdivisions outlined in blue (Image courtesy Nevada State Museum, Cahlan Research Library, Las Vegas).


regulate water on the Colorado River and provide a consistent water supply to the Imperial Valley in

California. Men looking for work came to the area by the thousands; many lived in tent cities awaiting the

opportunity to apply for a job. In the spring of 1931, Six Companies, Inc.—the corporation formed to complete

construction of what was in its planning stage called Boulder Dam—began work on the massive structure

sited 25 miles southeast of Las Vegas. The undertaking was so large in scale that the Bureau of

Reclamation’s contract with the construction company stipulated it was required to develop housing to

accommodate at least 80 percent of the workforce (Stevens 1988). The housing development, called Boulder

City, consisted of “250 one-room cottages, 260 two-room homes, and 123 three-room homes that married

couples could rent, as well as 8 two-story dormitories for single men” (Moehring and Green 2005:81).The

company also constructed a road to connect its construction site to Las Vegas, which became known as the

Boulder Highway. When construction of the dam infrastructure began, the workforce was comprised of 1,100

men (Stevens 1988).

The dam proved a boon to Las Vegas. The Six Companies office was headquartered out of Las Vegas and

the location became a shipping point for supplies to the construction site. In 1931 the city of Las Vegas

legalized gambling and while Boulder City developed with residential housing, commercial buildings,

churches, and a theatre, Las Vegas with its burgeoning casinos, clubs, and tourist attractions, was where

many of the dam’s construction workers spent their leisure time. An estimated $19,000,000 was infused into

the local economy as a result of the dam’s construction. Additionally, the dam itself served as a tourist

destination for thousands of Americans who sought to witness its construction. The number of tourists who

visited Las Vegas continued to rise through the years of dam construction growing from 230,000 people in

1933 to 300,000 in 1934 (Moehring and Green 2005). The dam was completed in 1935 and its associated

reservoir became known as Lake Mead.

As construction workers left to seek work in different regions of the country, Las Vegas experienced a

modest recession. However, Depression-era public works programs continued to stimulate the economy.

The War Memorial Building was constructed in Las Vegas with New Deal funding in the period between 1935

and 1936 (Moehring and Green 2005). Hotel owners and local leaders also worked to develop and promote

new events to draw tourists from Lake Mead to Las Vegas, such as the Helldorado Rodeo and Parade. In

1940, the population of Las Vegas stood at approximately 8,400 persons (Moehring and Green 2005).

However, it was not until the onset of the Second World War that Las Vegas once again began to experience

large-scale growth.

The Impact of the Defense Industry on the Growth of Greater Las Vegas

The defense industry which developed during World War II had a great impact upon the City of Las Vegas. In

the two years spanning 1940 and 1942, both a military training facility and a massive industrial plant were

developed on the periphery of the city. The Las Vegas Army Air Force Gunnery School (later known as Nellis

Air Force Base) was completed to the northeast of the city and began instructing military personnel in 1941.

In addition to the civilian employees and military personnel required to operate the facility, thousands of men

came to the facility for each six week training course. The Basic Magnesium Plant, constructed to the

southeast of Las Vegas, brought roughly 15,000 employees to the Las Vegas area both through its initial

construction and continued operation. While much of the influx of population associated with the construction


of these two facilities was transient, local leaders expected a significant number of workers and their families

to remain in Las Vegas and contribute to its economy. Additionally, those who were stationed—even

temporarily—for construction or training would visit the city’s casinos, which would in turn draw additional job

seekers in the tourism industry (Moehring and Green 2005). The Las Vegas tourism industry benefitted not

only from the gunnery school and Basic Magnesium Plant, but also from the establishment of Camp Sibert, a

small Marine base near Boulder City, and the Desert Warfare Center, a training facility located south of

Searchlight, Nevada. Some estimates place the peak population in the Las Vegas area during the war at

more than 35,000 people (Cahlan 1942).

Las Vegas Army Air Force Gunnery School/Nellis Air Force Base

The completion of Hoover Dam provided the Las Vegas area with a direct supply of water and electricity.

Defense industries for WWII, attracted by these resources, soon brought new economic and human capital to

the local economy. In 1939, the Military Appropriations Act dedicated funding for the creation and expansion

of Army Air Corps schools (Assistant Chief of Air Staff 1945). The following year, military authorities visited

Las Vegas and determined that the weather conditions and vast amount of surrounding open desert land

were ideal for the development of a gunnery school. Nevada Senator Pat McCarren further lobbied the Army

to establish the school and successfully brokered a deal with Western Air Express, owner and operator of an

airfield 7 miles north of Las Vegas, to sell their land to the City, who could subsequently use federal funding

to make improvements for the new school (Assistant Chief of Air Staff 1945; Moehring 2005). The city signed

an agreement with the Army in January 1941, thereby creating the first of six national gunnery ranges

(Assistant Chief of Air Staff 1945). In May, the school’s site agent issued a request for bids for a 25-acre

housing project consisting of 125 units to be occupied by non-commissioned officers and civilian employees

(Las Vegas Review, Journal 28 May 1941). In July 1941, an article in the Nevada State Journal noted that

the government was not successful in purchasing lands, and therefore filed a legal action to condemn 21

acres of private land, including Blocks 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 of the Grandview Addition (see Figure 5;

Figure 6). The owners of the land reportedly included the Neiswender Corporation, whose name appears on

a 1939 replat of the 1905 Grandview Addition (Clark County Recorder 1939: Book 2 page 20; Nevada State

Journal, 9 July 1941).

An article in the September 13, 1941 edition of the Las Vegas Review-Journal noted that the Army Air Corps

gunnery school and associated air field were nearing completion with sewer and utility lines in place.

Interestingly, it was mentioned that wartime restrictions on steel slowed the construction of a water tank on

site as there was a considerable delay in obtaining the necessary material. It was anticipated that the school

and airfield site would be completed by the beginning of 1942 (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 13 September

1941b).

A second article in the same newspaper noted construction had begun on a 125-unit defense housing

development, referred to as the Grandview Addition. The construction contract was awarded to the Lembke

Construction Company of New Mexico and the housing was to consist of four, five, and six room dwellings

(type not specified) which were described as “modern in every detail” (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 13

September 1941a:5). As was noted in the previous article from May, the housing was to be occupied by non-


Figure 6. Pioneer Title Map of the City of Las Vegas, ca. 1950, with Blocks 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 of the Grandview Addition outlined in blue.

commissioned officers and civilian employees of the airfield. The project was approved with Lanham Act

funding and is illustrative of the early approach to publicly funded defense housing which focused on

permanent over temporary construction. The article stated “the buildings are being so constructed that if the

army post is ever abandoned any time in the future, the houses can be sold or rented to civilians in Las

Vegas and their value not affected” (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 13 September 1941a:5). The Grandview

Addition development was not located in close proximity to the air field and gunnery range but was situated

in the northeastern portion of Las Vegas, to the south of Bonanza Street and east of South Fifth Street (Las

Vegas Boulevard). Historic aerial photography demonstrates that the Grandview Addition housing was

impacted by the construction of Maryland Parkway, which bisected the eastern portion of the development, in

the period between 1965 and 1973. In the period between 1973 and 1983, the buildings on the site were

demolished and new buildings were constructed by the Southern Nevada Housing Authority. This demolition

was likely in response to the planned development of U.S. Highway 95 which cut through the southern

portion of the original housing site by the early 1980s.

Training began at the school after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and by the

end of the year the center sought to expand its facilities in order to accommodate the entrance of 320


students per week (Assistant Chief of Air Staff 1945). Improvements were also carried out at the site of the

air field and gunnery range, including barracks and mess halls. In 1943 the school was renamed the Las

Vegas Army Air Field (LVAAF) (Nickel 2012). It is estimated that during the height of WWII, a total of 4,000

students completed training at the facility every six weeks (Moehring 2000). By the end of August 1944, more

than 44,000 students had graduated from the Las Vegas Gunnery School (Assistant Chief of Air Staff 1945).

In 1945, as the war was nearing its close, local concerns rose regarding the potential deactivation of the

LVAAF spurring city leaders to launch a campaign to ensure the facility would remain open. Local officials

brokered an initial deal to sell the site to the Army for $1 contingent upon receipt of government funds for the

development of a civilian airfield. However, this deal stalled and it was not until 1947 that Las Vegas voters

approved a ballot initiative to raise the funds to create a civilian airfield that the LVAAF site was permanently

dedicated to military use (Nickel 2012).

Basic Magnesium, Inc.

Basic Magnesium, Inc. (BMI) and the U.S. Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) selected a site for a

magnesium factory to be located between Las Vegas and Boulder City in 1941. The lightweight magnesium

metal was a key material used in the construction of aircraft and weaponry, making its procurement as war

material of interest to the U.S. government. Because operation of the plant required large amounts of

electricity and water, the proximity of the site to the Hoover Dam and Lake Mead proved ideal. Additionally,

large stores of magnesite—the ore used in the production of magnesium—were located within a few hundred

miles of the plant (Waldron 1942). Former U.S. Senator Charles B. Henderson of Nevada served on the

board of directors for the U.S. Defense Plant Corporation (DPC) and supported the construction of a plant

which could make use of the magnesite ore discovered near Gabbs, Nevada (Mooney 2007). With the further

support of Nevada Senators Key Pittman and Patrick McCarran, DPC made a commitment to fund the

construction of a plant, which would be leased and operated by BMI (Mooney 2007; Waldron 1942). The

McNeil Construction Company won the contract for the plant’s development and began construction in

October 1941 (Waldron 1942). The massive plant was projected to be 1.75 miles long by 0.75 mile wide

(Mooney 2007) (Figure 7). Reportedly 4,000 McNeil construction employees travelled to the site and, with

additional out of state emigrants seeking war-time work, the numbers of workers on site swelled to between

10,000 and 12,000 (Mooney 2007; Waldron 1942). As there was no available housing in the immediate area,

many workers lived in tents or ramshackle housing in the desert (Sadovich 1971; Waldron 1942) (Figure 8).

Opening in 1942, the factory soon became one of the country’s largest manufacturers of metallic

magnesium.

While the need to develop housing for the great influx of workers was nearly universally recognized, BMI

operators of the factory, government representatives, and local politicians argued as to the appropriate

location for the development (Mooney 2007). Local leaders in Las Vegas opposed the creation of a new

townsite which had the potential to draw revenue away from Las Vegas proper. However, it was recognized

that Las Vegas did not have the utility capacity to accommodate the necessary housing. BMI executive

Howard Eels sought to have housing developed at Boulder City; however, the Bureau of Reclamation

rejected this plan noting that Boulder City also did not have sufficient infrastructure to house the employees.


Figure 7. Street map of the BMI plant area, date unknown (Image reprinted from RAFI Planning, Architecture, and Urban Design 2008:14).

Figure 8. Housing conditions near the BMI plant, date unknown (Image courtesy of mypubliclibrary.com).


In a compromise with the leaders of Las Vegas, the housing constructed at the plant site was classified as

“demountable.” Units were manufactured in pieces off site, assembled on site, and considered temporary in

nature (Mooney 2007; Waldron 1942). One thousand single-family homes were constructed in the Basic

Townsite on the west side of the Boulder Highway; these homes housed management level BMI employees

and their families. A large women’s dormitory was also located within the southern portion of the townsite

(Van Dee 2009). The 300-unit Victory Village, located across the highway, consisted of apartments,

dormitories, and social/commercial service buildings for lower income white workers and their families. A

324-unit housing development known as Carver Park was constructed specifically for African American

workers and their families to the northeast of Victory Village (Canfield 1976; Mooney 2007) (Figure 9).

The Basic Townsite continued its trajectory of rapid growth, and by 1943, it represented the third largest

community in Nevada (Mooney 2007). The Townsite was laid out in a curvilinear pattern with houses facing

the streets at oblique angles. The community included a business center and school, and post office. In

1943, Anaconda Copper Company purchased rights from BMI to operate the plant and it remained in

operation until 1944, when surplus magnesium stores obviated the need for continued production. The

townsite had officially been designated Henderson in 1944, in honor of BMI plant promoter, Charles

Henderson; however, upon the plant’s closure, a massive exodus of residents occurred (Henderson

Historical Society, n.d.). The population did not stabilize until the plant was purchased by the State of Nevada

in 1948 (Mooney 2007).

Figure 9. Photograph of the Basic Townsite with the BMI plant in the distance, ca. 1942 (Image courtesy of mypubliclibrary.com).


Context 2: Local Efforts to Cope with the War-Time Housing Shortage

As defense industries such as the gunnery range and BMI plant began to draw large numbers of workers to

the Las Vegas area, the existing housing stock within the city proper proved woefully inadequate to

accommodate them. Many emigrant workers lived in makeshift tent communities, shared homes within the

city, or lived in trailers at the city’s tourist auto camps (Moehring and Green 2005). In 1941, Rolla E. Clapp,

chairman of the National Housing Research Organization, was hired to study and compile a report on the

housing situation in Las Vegas (Painter 2005). Clapp reported that there was an immediate shortage of 385

homes and a need to replace roughly 500 existing sub-standard homes. He underscored the urgency of Las

Vegas’ housing crisis, noting that for the 3,000 families anticipated to relocate for work at the newly

constructed BMI, an additional 4,500 families would arrive in Las Vegas to support them in the service

industry. Clapp predicted that the 1940 population of roughly 8,000 in Las Vegas would soon reach 13,000

(Painter 2005).

Clapp’s report provided the critical data to bolster the general perception that Las Vegas was suffering from a

critical housing shortage. Nevada Senator Berkeley L. Bunker reported in a June 16, 1941 article in the Las

Vegas Review Journal that talks were ongoing with President Roosevelt’s defense housing coordinator

Charles F. Palmer on the designation of Las Vegas as a critical defense area. Such designation, he

observed, would allow the city to benefit from the recently passed FHA Title VI mortgage insurance program

(Las Vegas Review Journal, 16 June 1941). One week following this article, the Las Vegas Review Journal

announced Las Vegas’s designation as a Title VI defense area. The article noted “the president’s designation

makes possible mass construction of FHA-financed homes, which will complement and not supplant the

existing FHA facilities in the home financing field (Las Vegas Review Journal, 23 June 1941).

An article appearing in a December 1941 edition of the Las Vegas Review Journal demonstrates that the

FHA had begun approving Title VI housing in Las Vegas noting that 647 applications for insurance

commitments had been received totaling more than $2,500,000 of potential new housing. FHA representative

Harry Sheeline stated that of these applications 167 had been approved which would result in the

construction of $496,350 in new housing. The average cost of each home was listed as $4,000 and it was

reported that home construction was typically completed within three months (Las Vegas Review Journal, 20

December 1941:4). In January of the following year, the Las Vegas Review Journal reported that in Las

Vegas “building permits show tremendous gain over 1940” (Las Vegas Review Journal, 3 January 1942:5).

The article gave a breakdown of the number of permits issued by housing type which included 273 single

family residences, 43 duplex dwellings, and 21 multi-family dwellings (Las Vegas Review Journal, 3 January

1942).The growth in residential development continued as is demonstrated by a March 1942 article in the

Las Vegas Review Journal which stated that in the first two months of the year building permits had been

issued for more than $500,000 in construction. The article further projected that several thousand residences

were to be constructed in 1942 which would establish a record level of development surpassing the era of

growth during the Boulder Dam construction (Las Vegas Review Journal, 10 March 1942).

While the majority of the residential development which occurred during the war was accomplished through

private development constructed by builders with commitments for federal mortgage insurance programs,

several subdivisions were also privately developed for homebuyers with financial means as “custom-built”


housing. While the developers of these “conventionally financed” subdivisions faced limited supplies of

construction materials, due to rationing, they did not have to comply with the underwriting regulations set

forth by the FHA and could exceed standard property and loan amount restrictions. In the case of minority

housing, de facto segregation, surging populations, and restricted access to construction materials resulted

in the hasty development of substandard housing.

The Development of Built on Demand (Custom) Subdivisions

A total of eight subdivisions were platted within the Las Vegas area between 1940 and 1945. Of these, only

three were developed by private developers without the assistance of the Federal government. These three

neighborhoods, which include the Beckley Subdivision, Sebec Acres, and the Eastland Heights

Neighborhood, were all developed between 1941 and 1942, reflecting efforts to house the new influx of

families relocating to Las Vegas to seek work in the city’s defense-related industries. Whereas the Beckley

Subdivision was located south of E. Charleston Boulevard to the east of the original townsite, Sebec Acres

and Eastland Heights were located outside the city limits to the east and west of U. S. Highway 95 (now N.

Rancho Drive) and north of Vegas Drive. One additional neighborhood—Charleston Square—was originally

planned as an FHA development but was later converted to a custom subdivision due to inflation and

increased production costs. Brief descriptions of the four built on demand subdivisions, in order of their plat

dates, are provided below.

Beckley Subdivision (1941)

The plat for the Beckley Subdivision was filed by Will and Leva G. Beckley in April 1941, in an undeveloped

area to the east of the Vega Verde Addition. Husband and wife Will and Leva G. Beckley filed the plat nearly

31 years after the pioneer couple moved to Las Vegas from their home in Indiana (Las Vegas Sun, 10

November 1966). Although Beckley, a painter, first came to Las Vegas in 1908 after his brother Jack and

pioneer Las Vegas businessman Ed Von Tobel recommended he relocate, he did not bring wife, Leva, with

him until 1910. Beckley is best known for his men’s clothing store, known as Beckley’s Men’s Wear,” which

he opened with his brother in 1908. The store originally operated out of a canvas tent, and was later the old

Hotel Nevada building (now part of the Golden Gate Hotel and Casino complex), which was advantageously

located across from the railroad depot (Garza 2011; Las Vegas Sun, 10 November 1966). In 1912, he and

Leva constructed a home at 120 South Fourth Street where they raised their two children, Virginia and

Bruce. The couple continued to operate the clothing store together on Fremont and Main Streets, eventually

expanding its stock from men’s work clothes such as “Levis and gloves” to include men’s suits and

specialized clothing, such as bathing suits, for both genders (Whitely 2005:52). By 1929, the business had

become so successful that the couple relocated the store to a refurbished 3-story building on the corner of

First and Fremont Streets (now the location of the Pioneer Club). Beckley operated the store on the ground

level and leased the upper stories to numerous organizations and businesses, including the Bureau of

Reclamation during the construction of Boulder Dam (Las Vegas Sun, 10 November 1966). The store

remained in operation at this location until Beckley’s retirement in 1941 (Las Vegas Sun, 10 November

1966). Additional stores were later opened in Goodsprings, Nevada and Blythe, California (Whitely 2005:52).

During his 57 years in the city, Beckley was active in civic and social affairs both before and during his

retirement. He was a member of the city’s Chamber of Commerce, as well as a director at the Bank of


Southern Nevada. He was also a charter member of the Las Vegas Rotary Club, and hosted numerous

social events at his home and in the hall above his business. Beckley was also active in the Las Vegas real

estate market, acquiring numerous landholdings, including the land of Beckley Addition and a parcel at the

intersection of Fifth and Fremont Streets.

Cited by Ainlay and Gabaldon (2003:28) as “bringing gracious living to the dusty small community” of Las

Vegas, Leva was also active in the Las Vegas community. She was a member of the Mesquite Club, and

was instrumental in establishing most of the social and cultural organizations in Las Vegas. Following Will’s

death in January 1965, Leva remained in the family home until ill health forced her to move in with relatives

in 1978. At the time of the move, Leva was 93 years of age. As the home was one of the last pioneer homes

remaining in Las Vegas, and its existence was being threatened by development pressures, the family

donated the home to the Clark County Museum in 1979 (Clark County Museum n.d.). Through the efforts of

the Junior League, the Beckley home was subsequently moved to the museum grounds, where it remains

one of five house museums along Heritage Street (Clark County Museum n.d.). At least one other building

and one business paid homage to the Beckley family remain in Las Vegas today. In 1966, an elementary

school near Mojave and Desert Inn Streets was dedicated in Will Beckley’s honor (Las Vegas Sun, 10

November 1966). In 2011, Beckley’s great granddaughter Melissa Richardson Akkaway opened a fashion

boutique known as “Beckley” in The Cosmopolitan hotel-casino on the Las Vegas strip.

The triangular-shaped Beckley Subdivision was bounded by the Boulder Addition to the west, Fourth Street

to the east, and Charleston Boulevard to the north (Figure 10). The lots of the tract were numbered

consecutively from 1 to 17, with Lots 2–12 oriented to face a cul-de-sac identified on the plat as “Third

Place.” The remaining lots (Lots 1 and 13–17) were situated in the northeastern and southern portions of the

subdivision. Due to the subdivision’s shape, the lots varied in size with the smallest lots located to the east

and west of the cul-de-sac and the largest lot forming the southernmost tip of the subdivision. Setback also

varied, with Lots 13–17 exhibiting no setback and those facing Third Place (Lots 2–12) possessing 20 feet of

setback. Lots along E. Charleston Boulevard—or Lots 1, 2, and 12—were also setback 15 feet from the

street. Additionally, a 10-foot-wide planting easement ran the length of Lots 1, 5, 6, and 7 along Fourth

Street.

This study could not locate information on the types of homes planned for the development. A newspaper

article announcing the opening of the subdivision indicates that least two of the homes within the subdivision

were to be “one-family dwellings” (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 8 July 1941). The homes were being

constructed by Las Vegas contractor Guy D. Mathis for Tom Bellis, a state traffic officer, and bank clerk

Jimmy Hoy. The article also indicates that city lights, water, sewer, curbs and gutters were already installed

in the subdivision, and graveled streets and fire hydrants were planned (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 8 July

1941).

Today, the subdivision is entirely commercial and little remains of its original lot configuration (Figure 11).

Third Place, once a cul-de-sac, provides access to parking areas to the south of businesses along E.

Charleston Boulevard on Lots 1, 3, 4, and 12. A large office complex (1200 S. Fourth Street) occupies the


Figure 10. Beckley Addition to the city of Las Vegas, as platted in April 1941 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


Figure 11. The Beckley Subdivision as it appears today (Image courtesy of Google Earth).


western half of Lots 13–17 with the eastern half of the lots serving as a parking area for the complex. Aerial

photography confirms that residences within the subdivision were razed sometime between 1965 and 1973.

Clark County Assessor records indicate that the office complex was constructed in 1984.

Sebec Acres (1941)

The Sebec Acres subdivision was platted by Las Vegas Mormon residents William R. and Zina Smith on

August 16, 1941 (Figure 12). The couple was married in Salt Lake City, Utah on July 28, 1910 (Deseret

Evening News, 30 July 1910). Prior to moving to Las Vegas, they resided in Evanston, Wyoming, where

William served as the Agricultural Agent for Uinta County (Census of Population and Housing 1930). The

Smiths are listed in the 1940 Federal census as residing in Las Vegas at 610 S. Tenth Street along with their

16-year-old daughter, Helen Jean (Census of Population and Housing 1940). The census indicates that

William (age 56) was employed as a veterinarian and Zina (age 55) was listed as a “housewife.” Both William

and Zina were born in Utah (Census of Population and Housing 1940). According to a family blog site, Turn

the Hearts, created by “Lark” for descendants of Shadrach Roundy and Betsey Quimby, Smith was the city’s

first veterinarian.

The wedge-shaped Sebec Acres consisted of a single block comprised of 12 lots; 5 of the lots were

rectangular in shape and measured 0.92 acres, and remaining 7 lots were irregularly-shaped and varied in

size from 1.03 to 1.49 acres. The subdivision was bounded by U.S. Highway 95 (now N. Rancho Boulevard)

to the west and undeveloped land to the north, south, and east. Historic maps suggest that Vegas Drive and

Ferrell Drive, the two streets which currently border the subdivision to the south and east, were not formally

constructed until the mid-1950s. At the time of its platting, the subdivision was located just north of the

incorporated city limits. This remained the case until the early 1960s, when the subdivision, along with much

of the Eastland Heights neighborhood to the west, was annexed into the city by the Planning Department

(Reno Evening Gazette, 25 March 1961). Other than the annexation date, no information on Sebec Acres

was found during the archival research effort.

The development trajectory for Sebec Acres is largely unknown. According to Clark County Assessor’s

records, nine properties remain within the neighborhood, and of these, only four are residential (Table 1).

Two of the properties—3022 Vegas Drive and 1608 Ferrell Street—have three single-family dwellings each,

and the remaining properties have only one. All of the residences are constructed of wood frame or concrete

block in the Minimal Traditional architectural style. Interestingly, only one of the residences remaining in the

development has a 1940 construction date (Photograph 1). The remaining residences were constructed in

1948 (Photograph 2), 1955, and 1964. Although it is not clear if these dates represent the actual construction

year or the dates when significant modifications were made to the dwellings, aerial photography suggests

that development of Sebec Acres was slow, with only four houses present on Lots 2, 3, 7, and 12 by 1950. A

second photograph taken in 1965 shows additional development in the southern and eastern portions of the

tract on Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. This suggests that despite its 1941 plat year, much of the residential

development within the Sebec Acres subdivision occurred between 1951 and 1964. Between 1994 and 1999,

the two ca. 1950 buildings on Lots 2 and 3 were razed; otherwise, development within the subdivision today

looks much like it did in the mid-1960s. In recent years, the boundary of the subdivision was expanded to the


Figure 12. Sebec Acres, as platted in August 1942 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


Figure 13. William Richard Smith, ca. 1906 (Image reprinted from Turn the Hearts blog [http://larkturnthehearts.blogspot.com/search/label/SMITH%20William%20R], accessed on 9 March 2015).

Table 1. Residential properties currently present within Sebec Acres (Source: Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).

Parcel No. Address Lot no. Year Built Description

139-20-411-008 3040 Vegas Drive Lot 7 1948 One story, wood frame, single-family dwelling measuring 1,147 ft

2. A Residential Appraisal

Record suggests the home originally had two bedrooms and one bath.

139-20-411-010 3028 Vegas Drive Lot 9 1955 One story,1,834 ft2 single-family dwelling

constructed of concrete block. The home originally had two bedrooms, one bath, one family room, and hardwood floors throughout.

139-20-411-011 3022 Vegas Drive Lot 10 1955 & 1964 Consists of three, wood frame single-family dwellings built in 1955 and 1964. All of the homes are a single story and range in size from 450 ft

2 to 1,995 ft

2.

139-20-411-012 1608–1610 Ferrell Street

Lots 11 & 12 1940 & 1955 Consists of three single-family dwellings built in 1940 and 1955. All of the homes are a single story and range in size from 660 ft

2 to 820 ft

2.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Oc6dJkX7yA8/U4xsHod6F5I/AAAAAAAAIgI/ys4ILl98OQU/s1600/William+Richard+SMITH.jpg


Photograph 1. 1610 Ferrell Street, constructed within Sebec Acres ca. 1940, facing west (Source: Google Earth).

Photograph 2. 3040 W. Vegas Drive, constructed within Sebec Acres in 1948, facing northwest (Source: Google Earth).


north to include a large parcel of predominantly undeveloped land and a single lot to the east of U.S.

Highway 95. Both the historic plat boundary and boundary of the subdivision as currently recognized by the

Clark County Assessor’s Office are shown on Figure 14. The northern parcel encompasses 17.05 acres and

has no standing structures. A commercial building currently occupies the eastern parcel, which encompasses

approximately 0.3 acre. The reason for the boundary increase is not known.

Eastland Heights Neighborhood (1942, 1945, 1957, and 1959)

Located across U. S. Highway 95 (now N. Rancho Boulevard) to the west of Sebec Acres, the first tract of

the Eastland Heights neighborhood was platted by Ezra B. and Muccola J. Coram of Riverside County,

California, and Van O. and Jessie L. Eastland of Las Vegas on February 25, 1942 (Figure 15). The Corams

were residents of Riverside County, California, and the Eastlands resided in Las Vegas, where Van worked

as a civil engineer. Little is known about Ezra and Muccola Coram. Archival research suggests that Ezra was

born in Romoland, California on November 2, 1876. On December 29, 1908, Ezra married Boone, North

Carolina native Mucolla Spencer in Sun City, California. The couple eventually moved to Pasadena where

they had three children—Paul, Ruth, and Ralph. In 1920, the Coram family migrated from Pasadena to a

160-acre ranch in Menifee, California. While in Menifee, Ezra served as trustee of the Menifee School Board

and was active in community affairs. Sometime prior to 1942, the couple sold their ranch and moved to

Riverside, California , their place of residence when they filed Tract 1 of the Eastland Heights Neighborhood

(Martin and Bouris 2006:83).

As previously noted, Eastland was a civil engineer in the “building construction industry” (Census of

Population and Housing 1940). A Montana native, Van lived in Great Falls, Montana and Tulsa, Oklahoma

with his wife Jessie before migrating to the Las Vegas area in 1937 to work for the Bureau of Reclamation as

an inspector for the Boulder Canyon project. Eastland served as civil engineer and surveyor for many of the

WWII era subdivisions, including the Biltmore, Huntridge, and Sebec Acres developments. Water permit

records on file with the Nevada Division of Water Resources indicate that he also served as the State Water

Right Surveyor between 1943 and 1948.

Plat No. 1 of the Eastland Heights Neighborhood was fan-shaped and comprised of four blocks (Blocks 14,

15, 21, and 22), each of which had a different number of lots. Block 21 had the most lots (10), with Blocks 14,

15, and 22 having 8, 6, and 7 lots, respectively. Most of the lots were square and measured 200 feet long by

200 feet wide. Corner lots varied in size, with the largest lot (Lot 1 of Block 22) measuring 1.1 acres. The lots

were situated along four curvilinear streets (Melody Lane, Sunset Drive, Primrose Path, and Mountain

Trail)—two of which connected with U.S. Highway 95 and provided access to the interior of the

neighborhood. Similar to the Sebec Acres neighborhood, the Eastland Heights subdivision was located just

north of the city limits.

The first tract of the Eastland Heights neighborhood was described in a May 9, 1941 edition of the Las Vegas

Review-Journal as located along Bonanza Road just east of the city golf course. The article described the

tract as encompassing 40 acres and confirmed that at the time of writing, water lines had been laid and some

grading performed. It noted, however, that further work within the tract had been suspended pending a well


Figure 14. Sebec Acres as it appears today (Image courtesy of Google Earth).

City of Las Vegas Historic Context June 2015 WWII Era Residential Housing in Las Vegas LSD Technical Report No. 145648 35

Figure 15. Plat No. 1 of the Eastland Heights neighborhood, amended on February 25, 1942 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


drilling hearing to be held before the public service commission at a yet to be determined date. According to

the article, the hearing was the result of the city engineer’s receipt of numerous informal protests against

Eastland, who had planned to drill a well to provide water to the subdivision. Despite the subdivision’s

location just north of Las Vegas, Eastland was required to cooperate with the city engineer and planning

commission subdivision law which placed all neighborhoods located within three miles of the incorporated

limits under the city’s jurisdiction.

According to Eastland, who was interviewed for the article, the finished development was to be one of the

“most outstanding home areas in the community” (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 9 May 1941). Eastland noted

that land within the 40-acre tract was being sold off in one-half acre lots for the construction of “single

residence units” that were not to exceed $5,000 in cost (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 9 May 1941). He further

stated that the completed development was to include a $350,000 “residence type” hotel; however, the

location for the proposed hotel was not specified in the article (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 9 May 1941).

Interestingly, Clark County Assessor’s records indicate that only six residential buildings were constructed

within Plat No. 1 during the WWII era. Even more interesting, three of these buildings have a build date of

1940, or one year before the plat was filed with the city. Two of the buildings are located on Vegas Drive, and

one is located at 3909 Mountain Trail. The building at 3909 Mountain Trail consists of a 2,941 ft2 wood frame

dwelling with stucco sheathing and a side-gabled composition shingle roof (Photograph 3); a Building Permit

Photograph 3. 3909 E. Mountain Trail, constructed within the Eastland Heights Neighborhood in 1940, facing east. Assessor records suggest that the exterior of the building has been substantially altered (Source Google Earth).


Record on file with the Clark County Assessor indicates that all four facades of the building have been

altered by additions (ca. 1964 and 1981), suggesting that little of the home’s original footprint remains intact.

The buildings on Vegas Drive consist of multi-family homes. The larger of the two buildings—a triplex located

at 3916 Vegas Drive—is situated at the northern end of the lot and is not visible from the street. The second

building—a 1,516 ft2 duplex at 3900 Vegas Drive—was originally a single family dwelling that was converted

to a duplex sometime prior to 1998 (Photograph 4) The remaining three buildings—3920 Mountain Trail,

3808 Vegas Drive, and 1703 Primrose Path—were built in 1944 and 1945. The buildings at 3920 Mountain

Trail and 3808 Vegas Drive (Photograph 5) have been converted to commercial space and 1703 Primrose

Path (Photograph 6) remains a residence.

On December 5, 1945, the Eastlands filed a second plat (Eastland Heights Plat No. 2) to the west of Plat No.

1 (Figure 16). Mountain Trail and a newly-designated road known as Hill Path (now known as Hillpath Trail)

served as the eastern boundary, and the northern and southern edges of the plat were bounded by Melody

Lane and Vegas Drive, respectively. The rectangular plat more than doubled the size of subdivision, adding

an additional 54 lots and four blocks (Blocks 9, 10, 11, and 12) to the 31 lots of Tract No 1. Lots within Plat

No. 2 were generally rectangular in size and measured 200-feet-long by 100-feet-wide; the only exception

were lots at the eastern end of Blocks 10 and 11, where the curvilinear streets of adjoining Plat No. 1

necessitated the development of irregularly-shaped lots.

Photograph 4. 3900 Vegas Drive, located within the Eastland Heights Neighborhood, facing north (Source Google Earth).


Photograph 5. 3808 W. Vegas Drive, constructed within the Eastland Heights Neighborhood in 1944, facing northwest (Source Google Earth).

Photograph 6. 1703 Primrose Path, constructed within the Eastland Heights Neighborhood in 1945, facing east (Source Google Earth).


Figure 16. Eastland Heights Tract No. 2, filed on December 5, 1945 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


Despite its plat date of 1945, assessor records indicate that the average build date for single family dwellings

within Tract No. 2 is 1954; the earliest residence, 1693 Hillpath Trail, was built in 1949, and construction

continued within the tract as late as 1958. The lack of early development within the neighborhood is

confirmed by a 1950 aerial photograph, which shows buildings within Tract No. 1 primarily concentrated on

the periphery of the subdivision along Vegas Drive and U.S. Highway 95. Five additional buildings are

present along the west side of Primrose Path and the south side of Melody Lane (Photograph 7). In addition

to the residence on Hillpath Trail, only five buildings within Tract No. 2 appear in the 1950 aerial. These

buildings are situated on Lots 9 and 10 of Block 10 and Lots 12, 20, and 21 of Block 11. Assessor’s records

confirm that buildings were developed on these lots in 1949 and 1950. Later aerial photography suggests

that build out for Tract Nos. 1 and 2 was completed by 1965.

In May 1957 and August 1959, Jessie Eastland filed two additional plats (Tract No. 3 and No. 4) to the north

of Tract Nos. 1 and 2 for the Eastland Heights neighborhood (Figure 17 and Figure 18). Whereas Eastland

was the sole owner of the fourth tract, couples Hoyt S. and Anita N. Sibley and F. Stanley and Martha Broad

also appear as owners on the Tract No. 3 plat. Tract No. 3 was bounded by Spring Road to the north, Melody

Lane to the south, Sycamore Trail to the east, and undeveloped land to the west. Eastland Heights No. 4

was located to the north of Tract No. 3 between Spring Road and College Avenue (now Coran Lane) with

vacant land to the west and east. Tract No. 3 had 25 lots and No. 4 was slightly smaller, with 20 lots. Streets

within both tracts were laid on a grid, creating rectangular shaped lots that measured 137 feet wide and

varied in length from 118 feet to 164 feet. As development of these tracts occurred well after the end of

Photograph 7. 4067 Melody Lane, an example of a home constructed within Tract No. 2 of the Eastland Heights Neighborhood between 1949 and 1950, facing south (Source Logan Simpson).


Figure 17. Eastland Heights Tract No. 3, filed on May 20, 1957 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


Figure 18. Eastland Heights No. 4, filed on August 17, 1959 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


WWII, they were not further researched; however, a review of aerial photographs indicates that 7 lots within

each tract—or 28 percent of the housing stock in Tract No. 3 and 35 percent of No. 4—remained

undeveloped by 1965. Houses within both tracts were built out by 1983.

Today, the development consists of a mix of businesses and single- and multi-family dwellings (Figure 19).

Commercial enterprises are principally located along N. Rancho Boulevard (formerly U.S. Highway 95) and

Vegas Drive, although some smaller, locally-owned businesses are located on the interior of the subdivision

along Primrose Path, Mountain Trail, and Sunset Drive. Most of the properties are located in single family

dwellings that have been converted to commercial space. The majority of the homes present within the

neighborhood today were constructed between 1965 and 1983. Very few homes dating to the WWII era

remain, and those that do have been substantially modified through additions and the replacement of historic

materials.

Charleston Square (1945; 1948–1949)

Unlike the other three built on demand subdivisions discussed in this context, Charleston Square is unique in

that its platting occurred at a pivotal point in the U.S. housing market—the transition between the

development of defense area housing and the housing boom to accommodate returning WWII veterans. One

year prior to the initial platting of the subdivision, Congress passed the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act (also

known informally as the G.I. Bill) which provided a range of benefits for returning WWII veterans. Among

these benefits was low interest, zero down payment home loans for servicemen, with terms that favored

purchase of new construction over existing housing. A November 1945 newspaper article describing the

planned Charleston Square subdivision noted that the developers originally intended to market homes to

returning war veterans who could take advantage of the G.I. Bill loan provisions as well as FHA financing.

However, shortly after construction began on the first 31 homes, material and production costs increased,

making continued development of the subdivision under the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act unfeasible.

After a number of meetings between the contractor, FHA, and the VA, it was decided that the $1,248,000

development be reverted to a strictly non-veteran project. Nevertheless, the neighborhood represents one of

the first attempts of a local developer to capitalize on government-sponsored financing options available to

returning veterans.

Pioneer Title Insurance and Trust Company platted Tract 1 of the Charleston Square Subdivision on July 11,

1945 (Figure 20). Signatories on the plat included Vice President M. M. Sweeney and Assistant Secretary J.

E. McManis. A newspaper article printed in the Nevada State Journal indicates that Sweeney was acting

President of the statewide firm as late as January 1960 (Nevada State Journal, 12 January 1960). The

rectangular tract was located to the east of the Huntridge Addition and south of E. Charleston Boulevard, and

included lots to the west and south of Chapman Drive and to the east of Sixteenth Street (see Figure 20). It

consisted of six blocks (Blocks 1–6) containing a total of 66 lots. The majority of the lots were square in

shape, although some irregularly shaped lots were located at curved intersections within the subdivision.

With the exception of four lots along E. Charleston Boulevard, all of the lots faced the interior, curvilinear

streets of Chapman Drive, Sixteenth Street, and Thelma Drive.


Figure 19. Eastland Heights neighborhood as it appears today (Image taken from Google Earth).


Figure 20. Charleston Square Tract No. 1, platted on July 11, 1945 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


As previously stated, the tract was part of the larger neighborhood plan illustrated by a November 1945

article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Although a developer’s name is not provided, the article states that

Lembke Construction Company, on behalf of Mastercraft Homes, Inc., would serve as the building contractor

for the 156 lot subdivision. Jack Chapman, whose affiliation is not disclosed, provided much of the

information on the neighborhood’s development for the article. According to Chapman, residential lots within

the subdivision were to range from 60 feet long by 100 feet wide to 55 feet long by 180 feet wide. Dwellings

were to consist of wood frame single, family detached homes with redwood siding and shingle roofs. Each of

the homes would have three bedrooms and two bathrooms, and in order to alleviate the city’s “acute housing

shortage,” were expected to be completed within one year (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 19 November 1945).

The plans for the development also called for the installation of 36-foot-wide, “heavily paved” streets, “full L-

shaped” curbs, 4-foot-wide sidewalks, and landscaping, “with a tree planted every 40 feet” (Las Vegas

Review-Journal, 19 November 1945). In conclusion, the article boasted that the neighborhood “would be one

of the most fully developed and highly restricted areas in Las Vegas and no outbuildings or additions to the

homes or fences will be allowed unless approved by a committee of homeowners” (Las Vegas Review-

Journal, 20 November 1945).

Although the newspaper article suggests that 31 homes were under construction at the time of its publication,

Clark County Assessor records indicate that the earliest build date for single family homes within the tract is

1947. Of the 57 homes currently located within Tract 1, 45 were constructed in 1947 (Photograph 8); one

was built in 1950; and ten were completed in 1951. Only one of the buildings (1219 S. Sixteenth Street) is

classified as a multi-family residence, or duplex, by the Clark County Assessor (Photograph 9). An aerial

photograph showing the Charleston Square neighborhood confirms that most buildings within the tract were

constructed by 1950; only four lots to the north of Thelma Lane remained vacant by this date. While assessor

records indicate that buildings were constructed on these lots in 1951, they also provide build dates of 1951

for seven residences that are clearly visible in the 1950 aerial.

Subsequent tracts for the Charleston Square neighborhood (Nos. 2–4) were filed during the post-WWII

period in 1948 and 1949. Mastercraft Homes, Inc., the building contractor noted in the 1945 article, was listed

as owner on all of the plats. Plat No. 2 consisted of five lots along Chapman Drive to east of Tract No. 1

(Figure 21); Tract No. 3 had seven lots situated on a single block to the east of Seventeenth Street and north

of Curtis Drive. (Figure 22); and Tract No. 4 was located to the south of Charleston Boulevard, north of the

Hillside Terrace subdivision, west of Hillside Place, and east of Seventeenth Street (Figure 23). The largest

of the subsequent tracts, Tract No. 4 consisted of three blocks (Blocks 1, 2, and 3) encompassing 21 lots.

A newspaper article suggests that by 1948, homes within the development were being constructed by Tee

Construction Company, a contracting firm headed by Las Vegas contractor Richard “Tony” Toleno and

Reuben Speckter of Los Angeles (Reno Evening Gazette, 14 October 1948). The article indicates that the


Photograph 8. 1224 Chapman Drive, an example of a single-family, Ranch style home constructed within Tract No. 1 of the Charleston Square Neighborhood in 1947, facing southwest (Source Logan Simpson).

Photograph 9. 1219 S. Sixteenth Street, example of a multi-family dwelling constructed within Tract No. 1 of the Charleston Square Neighborhood in 1947, facing north (Source Google Earth).


Figure 21. Charleston Square Tract No. 2, platted on July 26, 1948 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


Figure 22. Charleston Square Tract No. 3, platted on March 22, 1949 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


Figure 23. Charleston Square Tract No. 4, platted on August 23, 1949 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


company was initiating construction on at least 58 new homes in Tract No. 2.1 An aerial photograph showing

the development confirms that homes within all three tracts were completed by 1950.

Clark County Assessor’s records indicate that a total of 92 buildings are currently located within the

subdivision. The majority of these buildings, or 68 percent, are located within Tract No. 1. Tract No. 3 has the

least number of buildings, with only three remaining. Today, the northern edge of the subdivision along

Charleston Boulevard is lined with commercial properties, rather than the single-family dwellings that were

once present. Aerial photographs confirm that the residences on Block 1 of the original tract were razed and

replaced with larger commercial buildings between 1965 and 1994. In comparison, development within the

other Tracts has remained largely unchanged. Photographs suggest that, with the exception of one dwelling

that was demolished in the early 1990s to create a parking lot, the original residences remain but have been

converted for commercial use. A cluster of multi-family duplexes, the majority of which were constructed in

1950, remain along the south side of Thelma Lane and attest to the developer’s desire to provide a higher

density of housing to the city’s growing population.

FHA-Influenced Subdivisions

Archival research indicates that four FHA-influenced subdivisions were constructed in Las Vegas during the

WWII era. These neighborhoods include the Vega Verde Addition within the John S. Park Historic District

(1941–1945; 1951); the Biltmore Addition (1941–1946); the Huntridge Neighborhood (1941–1946), and the

Mayfair Homes Neighborhood (1941–mid-1950s). Whereas the Vega Verde Addition was constructed in a

manner that allowed home buyers to qualify for FHA Title II financing, the other three subdivisions received

funding under Title VI and were specifically developed to house non-commissioned officers and civilian

employees of the Las Vegas Bombing and Gunnery Range, as well as employees of Basic Magnesium Inc.

and their families. The following section provides a brief description of these neighborhoods. More detailed

histories of these developments can be found in Mooney (2003a; 2003b; 2003c), Painter (2005) and ICF

International (2015), respectively.

The Vega Verde Addition within the John S. Park Historic District (1941–1945)

The Vega Verde Addition is one of two subdivisions comprising the NRHP-listed John S. Park Historic

District. The district, which consists of 160 homes and a small park, is located south of downtown between

Las Vegas Boulevard and South Ninth Street and Charleston Boulevard and Franklin Avenue. The earlier

subdivision, known as the Park Place Addition, forms the western half of the historic district, and the Vega

Verde Addition forms the eastern half. The Park Place Addition was platted by John S. Park and his son

William in 1928, with most of the residences built in the 1930s. In comparison, the Vega Verde Addition was

platted 13 years later and represents the first housing development in Las Vegas to be approved for FHA

Title II funding. Because of this, the Vega Verde Addition is the only addition within the larger John S. Park

Historic District to be included in this context. Properties within the John S. Park Historic District were

surveyed by Courtney Mooney of 20th Century Preservation in 2002. The historic district was

1 This is presumably a typographical error, as Tract No. 2 only had 7 lots. It is probable that the company replaced

Lembke Construction Company on the project, and was hired to finish construction of the development, including new homes within Tract Nos. 2, 3, and 4, and on the few remaining vacant lots within Tract No. 1.


Figure 24. Charleston Square as it appears today (Image taken from Google Earth).


added to the city’s historic register on March 19, 2003, and was subsequently listed in the NRHP on May 16,

2003 under Criteria A and C for its “high level of existing historic integrity and the association of the historic

building types and subdivision design with local and national historic occurrences and trends”

(Mooney 2003a:7).

The Vega Verde Addition within the John S. Park Historic District was platted by Park’s son William and his

wife Mary Belle and property owners Robert “Leroy” and Mary E. Dutton on April 17, 1941 (Figure 25). The

addition consisted of three blocks (e.g., Block 1, 2, and 3) located along Sunset Drive, S. Sixth Street, Park

Paseo, Franklin Avenue, and Charleston Boulevard. Blocks 1 and 3 had 24 lots each, and Block 2 was

considerably smaller, consisting of only six lots. Most of the lots were 60 feet wide and encompassed

between 0.18 to 0.20 acres. The plat also included a park (known today as Mary Dutton Park) on a

triangular-shaped parcel to the west of Block 1 and northeast of Block 2 (see Figure 25).

Mooney (2003a) notes that sometime prior to the platting of the addition, 55 acres of land within Vega Verde

were acquired by George Franklin and his business partner, Frank Beam. Although the exact date of the land

transfer is not known, George Franklin’s name appears on the 1941 plat map as the surveyor of the addition.

The plat further states that Franklin was responsible for laying out the “blocks, lots, streets, parks, and public

places” of the addition, which further suggests that he was involved in the early planning of the

neighborhood.

Franklin’s involvement with the addition is further confirmed by a February 1941 newspaper article, which

states that both Franklin and Beam planned to lay out water lines and sell the lots individually to prospective

owners, speculators, or builders who could purchase multiple lots and concurrently build houses on them

(Las Vegas Review-Journal, 26 February 1941). The article also noted that streets and lots within the

addition were to be “laid out in accordance with FHA regulations” (Mooney 2003a:30; Las Vegas Review-

Journal, 26 February 1941). A second article appearing in the April 18, 1941 edition of the Las Vegas

Evening Review-Journal stated that the “petitioner” (presumably Franklin), had agreed at the request of “the

board” to surface the streets with gravel and install fire hydrants within the addition (Las Vegas Evening

Review-Journal, 18 April 1941).

In August of 1941, the addition is described by the Las Vegas Evening Review-Journal as rapidly growing

According to an article in the newspaper, four homes within the addition had been completed and plans for

eight new houses had been developed. The eight homes to be constructed were expected to be available for

sale within the next 90 days and were described as having air-conditioning and electric heat. The average

cost of the homes was $6,000 and each was described as possessing six rooms. The article further provided

a description of two six-room dwellings which were nearing completion at the time of the article. One of the

residences was described as having a basement, a cream-colored exterior, and green trim, and the second

was described as a Ranch style home with a white and brown exterior (Las Vegas Evening Review-Journal,

2 August 1941). Dale Howell was listed as the owner of the home with the basement, and the owners of the

ranch home were Mr. and Mrs. A. R. Grant. The article also provided owners’ names for two of the


Figure 25. Vega Verde Addition, as platted in April 1941 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


completed homes, as well as those owners currently building homes in the subdivision; these include: Mr.and

Mrs. Rex Jarrett, George Franklin, Mr. and Mrs. Howard Wilbourn, Herbert Wollmam, Mr. and Mrs. Van

Santongue, Frank Santongue, Alden Sharp, and James H. Downs, Jr. (Las Vegas Evening Review-Journal,

2 August 1941).

Clark County Assessor’s records suggest that the newspaper article may have exaggerated the early

success of the subdivision as only four homes—presumably the four mentioned in the article—were built by

the end of 1941. One event that may have contributed to a delay in construction was the sudden death of

Franklin’s partner, Frank Beam, in December 1941. The scarcity of lumber and the Federal government’s

restriction on building materials may have also been a factor, particularly since home plans prepared for the

subdivision called for wood frame construction. Despite these obstacles, building permit records confirm that

work within the addition continued, with seven of the eight planned homes were finished in 1942—well

beyond the anticipated 90-day completion date noted in the newspaper article. Interestingly, Clark County

Assessor’s records list the build date for one additional residence within the addition as 1940, or one year

before the plat was formally filed with the city. According to Mooney (2002), this residence located at 1141 S.

Sixth Street was constructed for James H. Down, Jr., one of the owners of the four finished dwellings noted

within the August 1941 article (Photograph 10). All of these residences remain in the addition today and are

considered contributors to the John S. Park Historic District (Table 2).

Photograph 10. 1141 S. Sixth Street in the Vega Verde Addition of the John S. Park Historic District constructed in 1940, facing east (Source: Mooney 2002). The photograph was taken in 2002. The wrought iron porch enclosure is no longer present; otherwise, the building appears the same today.


Table 2. Residential properties within the Vega Verde Addition built between 1940 and 1942 (Source: Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas; Mooney 2002).

Parcel No. Block & Lot

Address Year built Descriptiona

162-03-511-011 Block 3, Lot 11

1141 S. Sixth Street 1940 One-story, wood frame, Ranch style house with a U-shaped front façade

162-03-511-014 Block 1, Lot 18

1201 S. Ninth Street 1941 One-story, wood frame, Ranch style house with an L-shaped plan

162-03-511-009 Block 3, Lot 9

1133 S. Sixth Street 1941 One-story, wood frame, Ranch style house with an L-shaped facade and one-car garage

162-03-511-015 Block 1, Lot 17

925 Park Paseo 1941 One-story, wood frame, Ranch style house with a rectangular footprint

162-03-511-020 Block 1, Lot 11

815 Park Paseo 1941 One-story, wood frame, Ranch style house with a one-car attached garage

162-03-511-013 Block 1, Lot 19

1205 S. Ninth Street 1942 One-story, wood frame, Ranch style house with a U-shaped footprint

162-03-511-019 Block 1, Lot 13

819 Park Paseo 1942 One-story, wood frame, Ranch style house with a square footprint and metal carport at its west end

162-03-511-016 Block 1, Lot 16

831 Park Paseo 1942 One-story, wood frame, Ranch style house with an L-shaped plan

162-03-511-018 Block 1, Lot 14

823 Park Paseo 1942 One-story, wood frame, Minimal Traditional style house with a rectangular footprint and one-car garage at its west end

162-03-511-007 Block 3, Lot 7

1119 S. Sixth Street 1942 One-story, wood frame, Ranch style house with brick and stone masonry veneer

162-03-511-004 Block 3, portion of Lot 3

1105 S. Sixth Street 1942 One-story, wood frame, Ranch style house

162-03-511-001 Block 2, Lot 1

1033 S. Sixth Street 1942 One-story, wood frame, Tudor style house with an L-shaped plan and patio addition

a = Taken from Historic Resource Inventory Forms prepared by Courtney Mooney in 2002 as part of the field survey for the

John S. Park Historic District.

On December 21, 1942, a second tract, known as the “Amended Tract of the Vega Verde Tract 2 Addition,”

was filed to the south of the original subdivision by William and Mary Belle Park, Robert and Mary Dutton, L.

J. and Joanne L. Gibson, and Estella C. Beam (presumably Frank Beams’ widow). The amended plat added

an additional six blocks and 124 lots to the south of Park Paseo, north of Franklin Avenue, and along the

east and west sides of S. Ninth Street and S. Sixteenth Street, respectively (Figure 27). It also included the

resubdivision of 17 lots (e.g., Lots 21–24 of Block 1 and Lots 12–24 of Block 3) of the original Vega Verde

Addition to accommodate the reconfiguration of Park Paseo and the removal of 11 lots (e.g. Lots 1–11) from

Block 3 (see Figure 27).

Newspaper articles suggest that Franklin & Law Developers were primarily responsible for the construction of

homes within Tract 2 (Mooney 2003a:9). This partnership between the addition’s original developer, George

Franklin and John Law formed in April 1945. Buyers of homes within the addition were offered the choice of

four home plans to be built by a contractor selected by Franklin & Law (Mooney 2003a:9). All of the models

were of wood frame construction, with prices ranging from $5,000 to $12,000 (Mooney 2003a:28). More

expensive homes, up to $15,000 in value, were also offered to prospective buyers, but few were built


according to building permit records (Mooney 2003a:28). Building permit records suggest that construction

within Tract 2 was also slow, with only 11 homes built between the platting of the tract in 1942 and 1944. The

majority of these homes were located on Blocks 3 and 5.

In 1945, the subdivision appeared in the news again, this time advertised as a “new realty development” to

the south of Charleston Boulevard (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 14 July 1945). Although incorrectly referred

to as the “Vegas Verde Addition,” the article credits Franklin & Law Realty & Development Company with the

subdivision’s development, including the installation of sewers, water lines and streets, which are described

as nearly completed in the article. It further states that the company planned to begin construction on four

homes, with 25 applications for additional dwellings received and pending approval. Many of the homes were

reported as sold to returning veterans who were taking advantage of the financing opportunities offered by

the “Veteran’s branch of the FHA” (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 14 July 1945). According to Mooney

(2003a:28), nine homes were completed within the subdivision in 1945 (Figure 26); the following year,

25 homes were built, the resurgence likely due to the lifting of restrictions on building materials. Mooney

(2003a:28) does point out that residents were still fighting for water, streetlights, and pavement as late as

1947, however.

Figure 26. Aerial photograph showing development within the Vega Verde Addition, ca. 1945. Charleston Boulevard is visible along the right edge of the photograph (Image courtesy of UNLV Special Collections, Las Vegas).


Figure 27. Amended plat (Tract 2) of the Vega Verde Addition, as platted in December 1942 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


The listing of the Vega Verde Addition, as part of the John S. Park Neighborhood Historic District, in the City

of Las Vegas Historic Property Register in 2003 paved the way for the development of design guidelines.

These guidelines, nested under the applied historic residential zoning, have assisted with the retention of

historic building fabric within the district (Figure 28). Although many of the homes have been altered by

exterior modifications, the overall condition of the neighborhood remains good (Photograph 11 and

Photograph 12). In 2002, Mooney described the neighborhood as continuing “to improve as younger

professional families move into the homes and invest money into improvements.” She further noted that

property values in the neighborhood had steadily increased an average of $10.00 per square foot between

1999 and 2002 (Mooney 2003a:10). Furthermore, the creation of the John S. Park Neighborhood Association

in 1995 has further served to preserve housing stock within the addition and maintain the “unique way of life”

that the neighborhood offers to both longtime residents and prospective buyers.

Biltmore Addition (1941–1946)

The initial plat for the Biltmore Subdivision was filed by Biltmore Homes, Inc. on December 21, 1941, on

property formerly owned by the Union Pacific Railroad (Mooney 2003b:9). The irregularly-shaped subdivision

consisted of 97 lots located to the north of the I-15 and I-95 interchange along the west sides of N. First

Street and Biltmore Drive and the south side of Palm Lane on the north (Figure 29). The lots were situated

within six blocks (e.g., Blocks 1–6) that varied in size due to the subdivision’s irregular shape. The lots also

varied in size and shape, with the smallest lots located adjacent to street intersections and the largest lots

located to the north of Biltmore Drive and along a cul-de-sac at the east end of N. First Street (see

Figure 29). Streets within the subdivision were narrow and curvilinear. Housing setback was also curvilinear,

with some lots exhibiting as much as 55 feet of setback and others having a setback of only 20 feet. A

newspaper article describing the addition noted that the variation in setback was designed to “avoid the old

time uniformity of house fronts” (Mooney 2003b:9). Additionally, a 5-foot-wide utility easement was present

along the rear of each lot.

Homes planned for the addition were designed by Phoenix, Arizona architect and Secretary of Biltmore

Homes, Inc. Orville A. Bell. Prospective buyers could choose from 16 elevations designed by Bell, with the

stipulation that their home had to be a different elevation than the ones adjacent to it (Mooney 2003b:9).

Although a 1942 newspaper advertisement for the original subdivision depicts a cottage style home with a

central chimney, double hung, multi-lite windows, and a one-car attached garage, the majority of the homes

within the addition were built in the FHA-prescribed Minimal Traditional architectural style (Figure 30). All of

the homes were to be a single story with a shaded overhang, or service porch, and each was to contain two

bedrooms and one bathroom. Additional rooms included a living room, dining room, and kitchen. Homes

were advertised with a concrete tile exterior, but were predominantly constructed of concrete block with brick

veneer (Mooney 2003b:9).

In 1942, three consecutive annexations were filed to the original addition. All three of these annexations—

known as Biltmore Addition Annex Nos. 1, 2, and 3—were filed by local businessmen Archie C. Grant, Al E.

Cahlan, and E. W. Clark of Victory Homes, Inc. Annex No. 1 was approved by the Board of Commissioners

and city on March 4, 1942, and Annex Nos. 2 and 3 were both approved on May 4. Annex No. 1 included 43


Figure 28. Vega Verde as it appears today (Image taken from Google Earth). Note the exclusion of one lot originally within the 1941 Addition from the current subdivision boundaries.


Photograph 11. 1206 S. Seventh Street, example of a Ranch style house in the Vega Verde Addition constructed in 1948, facing west (Source: Logan Simpson).

Photograph 12. 1235 S. Ninth Street, an example of a Ranch style house in the Vega Verde Addition constructed in 1947, facing east (Source: Logan Simpson).


Figure 29. Biltmore Addition to the city of Las Vegas, as platted by Biltmore Homes, Inc. on December 21, 1941 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


Figure 30. 1942 advertisement for the Biltmore Addition (Image reprinted from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, 2 February 1942).

lots—one of which was reserved for an elementary school (known today as the Biltmore Alternative School)

(Figure 31). Annex No. 2 was slightly larger, with 55 lots located along N. Fourth Street, Bell Drive, and

Bonanza Way (Figure 32). The largest of the plats, Annex No. 3, was situated between N. Fifth Street (now

Las Vegas Boulevard), North Ninth Street, McWilliams Avenue, and Bonanza Road and consisted of 61 lots

(Figure 33). Unlike the other three plats, the third plat had lots for commercial development and included

plans for the construction of a hotel and shopping center (Mooney 2003b:10). Additionally, the lot on the

corner of Bonanza Drive and N. Ninth Street was reserved for the construction of the North Ninth Street

School. Homes within these later annexations were generally the same as those of the original tract,

although the final phase of development also includes some homes built in the Ranch architectural style,

which according to Mooney (2003b:10), “succeeded the Minimal Traditional as the most common WWII and

post WWII suburban housing type and style.” Newspaper accounts also indicate that dwellings within Annex

No. 3 were slightly more expensive, with the original price of at least 10 homes averaging between $5,000

and $6,000 (Mooney 2003b:11). This change in price was presumably due to inflation, as all of the buildings

were constructed in 1954 (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 19 March 1945).


Figure 31. Biltmore Addition Annex No. 1, as platted on March 4, 1942 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


Figure 32. Biltmore Addition Annex No. 2, as platted on May 4, 1942 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


Figure 33. Biltmore Addition Annex No. 3, as platted on May 4, 1942 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


Today the subdivision contains 206 single- and multi-family dwellings and commercial properties

(Photograph 13 and Photograph 14). Construction years for 205 of these buildings are included in Table 3.

Assessor’s records suggest that the remaining building was constructed prior to the platting of the original

subdivision in 1936. This building, which is located within Annex No. 3 at 721 N. Ninth Street, is similar in

style to those built within the original addition, suggesting that the build date is likely a typographical error.

Table 3. Build dates for buildings currently located within the Biltmore Addition (Source: Clark County Assessor’s office, Las Vegas).

Construction Year

No. of Buildings

Total (%) Biltmore Addition

Annex No. 1 Annex No. 2 Annex No. 3

1942 79 28 8 — 115 (56.1)

1943 2 14 44 — 60 (29.3)

1944 1 — — — 1 (0.4)

1945 1 — 1 — 2 (1.0)

1946–1959 2 — 1 20 23 (11.2)

1960–1969 1 — — 1 2 (1.0)

Post 1970 — — — 2 2 (1.0)

Total no. of Buildings

86 42 54 23 205 (100.0)

The subdivision remains much the same as it did during the historic period (Figure 34). Aerial photographs

confirm that residential construction within the addition was largely completed by 1950, with additional

commercial development occurring along N. Las Vegas Boulevard (now N. Fifth Street) and E. Bonanza

Road between 1950 and 1965. Seventeen vacant lots—once home to single-family residences—are also

present within the addition. Twelve of these lots are located within the original addition along the west side of

N. First Street. Aerial photographs suggest buildings on all 12 of these lots were razed between 1994 and

1999. Only one and four lots are vacant within Tract Nos. 2 and 3, respectively. According to

Mooney (2003b:11), many single-family homes within Annex No. 3 have been converted to multi-family

housing. Records on file at the Clark County Assessor’s office also confirm that at least ten single-family

residences within the original plat and Annex No. 2 were converted to duplexes and fourplexes since 1970.

Additionally, aerial photography suggests that all of the original buildings on Block 1 of Annex #3 were

demolished sometime between 1973 and 1983. An apartment complex and parking lot is situated on the

southern half of the block, and the Neon Museum is located on the northern half.

Huntridge Neighborhood (1941–1946)

The Huntridge Neighborhood is located in the heart of downtown Las Vegas approximately five blocks east

of Las Vegas Boulevard and a little over a mile from Fourth and Fremont Streets. The neighborhood, which

consists of 572 properties on 140 acres, is bounded by Charleston Boulevard to the north; Franklin Avenue

to the south; the John S. Park Historic District and FHA-sponsored Vega Verde Addition to the west; and the


Photograph 13. 105 Palm Lane within the Biltmore Addition constructed in 1942, facing northeast (Source: Logan Simpson).

Photograph 14. 638 N. Fourth Street within the Biltmore Addition, constructed in 1943, facing south (Source: Logan Simpson).


Figure 34. Biltmore Addition as it appears today (Image taken from Google Earth).


custom built Charleston Square Neighborhood to the east (see Figure 1). In addition to being the largest of

the three subdivisions built under the auspices of FHA’s Title VI program, it was one of the first subdivisions

in Las Vegas where dwellings were constructed and sold along with the lot to buyers. It was also progressive

as it included provisions for an elementary school, park, a theater, and a shopping center, all of which were

within walking distance of the neighborhood “in interest of national defense” (Las Vegas Evening Review

Journal, 10 February 1942; Painter 2005:8).

Tract No. 1 of the Huntridge subdivision was filed by Francis D. Griffin and Thomas A. Oakey of Realty

Development Corporation (also known as the Huntridge Development Company) on December 12, 1941

(Figure 35). Four additional tracts (Tract Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5) were filed by the corporation in February,

November, and December of 1942. Tract Nos. 2 and 3 were largely a continuation of Tract No.1 to the east

(Figure 36 and Figure 37), and Tract No. 4 was situated to the south of the other three tracts and included

lots along both sides of Franklin Boulevard and those to the south of Oakey Boulevard (Figure 38). The fifth

tract was located to the west of Tract No. 4 and with the westernmost lots located along the west side of S.

Tenth Streets. The four tracts contained a total of 502 lots situated on 35 blocks (e.g., Blocks 1–35). One

hundred and forty four of the lots, or 48 percent of the total number of lots within the subdivision, were

located within Tract No. 3. The eastern and western ends of Tract Nos. 2 and 3 joined together to form a 3.5

acre oval-shaped parcel in the center of Maryland Parkway which was reserved for the development of a

park. Blocks within the subdivision were either rectangular or L-shaped, with the majority of the lots fronting

interior streets. Lots were generally rectangular and measured 60 feet wide. The length of the lots varied

from 100 feet to 150 feet, with the largest lots located in Tract No. 1 to the east of Ninth Street. All of the

homes were setback 20 feet from the street and had a 5-foot-wide utility easement. Interestingly, this

configuration differs from that described in a newspaper account, which stated that, “The distance each

house is set back from the curb will be varied to avoid the ‘military pup tent’ effect” (Las Vegas Evening

Review Journal, 20 December 1941).

According to an October 20, 1941 newspaper article, a total of 75 homes were to be built during the first

phase of construction (Painter 2005:9). The newspaper article further stated that the subdivision was to

include 18 four-unit apartment buildings in addition to the 572 single-family dwellings, although Painter

(2005:9) notes that these multi-family dwellings were never constructed. In a second article printed two

months later, President of the Realty Development Corporation, Francis D. Griffin described forthcoming

homes within the subdivision as designed for “character, originality, and dignity” in order to “escape the

mining town aspects so prevalent in former planned housing developments” (Las Vegas Evening Review

Journal, 20 December 1941). In order to avoid repetition of design, 27 different elevations and 14 basic floor

plans for single-family homes were developed (Painter 2005:10). The homes were to be constructed by

McNeil Construction Company, the contractor responsible for the construction of BMI. Homes ranged in price

from $4,000 to $5,000, depending on the type of home constructed and the size of the lot (Painter 2005:10).


Figure 35. Huntridge Subdivision Tract No. 1, as platted on December 12, 1941 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


Figure 36. Huntridge Subdivision Tract No. 2, as platted on February 17, 1942 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


Figure 37. Huntridge Subdivision Tract No. 3, as platted on October 20, 1942 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


Figure 38. Huntridge Subdivision Tract No. 4, as platted on October 20, 1942 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


Figure 39. Huntridge Subdivision Tract No. 5, as platted on December 21, 1942 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Las Vegas).


The park in the center of Maryland Parkway was to have shaded benches, a softball diamond and a touch

football field, and a children’s recreation area with playground facilities, sandboxes, and a wading pool

(Painter 2005:10). Landscaping was to consist of grass and shrubs, with trees outlining its perimeter

(Painter 2005:10).

On February 10, 1942, an article reporting on the progress of the Huntridge Neighborhood was printed in the

Las Vegas Evening Review Journal. The article noted that grading within the neighborhood had been

completed, and that water and sewer and utility lines had been installed (Las Vegas Evening Review

Journal, 10 February 1942). It further stated that 75 homes were currently in production, with the first house

expected to be completed on March 1 (Las Vegas Evening Review Journal, 10 February 1942). After March

1, the subdivision’s contractor, the McNeil Housing Company, anticipated that three buildings would be

completed per day. The homes, several of which were pictured in the article (Figure 40), had shingle roofs

and were reported to contain six rooms including two bedrooms, a living room, a dinette, a kitchen, and one

bathroom, as well as a garage. The article further stated that streets within the subdivision were intentionally

curved to slow traffic; a small shopping center was to be provided; and the entire neighborhood was to be

landscaped upon completion (Las Vegas Evening Review Journal, 10 February 1942).

Figure 40. Photograph showing homes constructed by the Realty Development Co. on Charleston Boulevard in 1942 (Image reprinted from Las Vegas-Review Journal, 10 February 1942).

Between 1943 and 1944, Realty Development Corporation initiated an aggressive marketing campaign in

order to sell homes in Huntridge Neighborhood. Initially, advertisements were targeted toward the city’s

defense workers, including those employed at BMI and the Gunnery Range (Figure 41). A later

advertisement printed in a December 1943 edition of the Las Vegas Evening Review Journal boasted that in

addition to its schools, parks, and bus service, it had protective restrictions – which implied the restriction of

African-Americans from living in the neighborhood (Figure 42). As previously noted, these covenants were

endorsed by the FHA until 1948, when the U. S. Supreme Court determined that the restrictions were

unconstitutional and could not be enforced (Painter 2005:11). Other advertisements highlighted the

development’s amenities, such as its proximity to public transportation, shopping, and downtown Las Vegas,

or simply included a recent photograph of a grouping of homes and included catchy headlines to entice

future homeowners (Figure 43 and Figure 44). As the war progressed, Painter (2005:11) points out that the

emphasis of the advertisements shifted from promoting basic services to comfort, convenience, and the

availability of technologically advanced, modern conveniences that enhanced family life.


Figure 41. Advertisement for the Huntridge Neighborhood appearing in the January 26, 1943 edition of the Las Vegas Evening Review Journal targeted towards workers in the defense industry (Image reprinted from Painter 2005).


Figure 42. Advertisement for the Huntridge Neighborhood appearing in a December 1943 edition of the Las Vegas Evening Review Journal (Image reprinted from Painter 2005).


Figure 43. June 1944 advertisement for the Huntridge Neighborhood (Image reprinted from ICF International 2014:24).

Figure 44. Advertisement for the Huntridge Neighborhood appearing in the November 24, 1943 edition of the Reno Gazette (Image reprinted from newspaperarchive.com).


Historic inventory reports indicate that as of 2005 and 2014, Tract Nos. 1 and 2 contained 154 buildings, and

Tract No. 3 contained 133 buildings, respectively. These buildings consist of both single-family dwellings;

commercial properties; and single-family dwellings that have subsequently been converted for commercial

buildings (Photograph 15, Photograph 16, and Photograph 17; Figure 45). All of the commercial properties

are located along the periphery of the neighborhood, and particularly along S. Maryland Parkway, where

aerial photographs suggest that commercial development became widespread after the 1980s. Clark County

Assessor’s data confirms that the majority of the buildings within the first two tracts, or 75 percent, were

constructed in 1942. The remaining buildings were built between 1943 and 1947, with only 11 homes

constructed after the close of the war. 1944 was the most productive year for Tract No. 3, with 73 percent of

its building stock built in that year. However, unlike the first two tracts, development of Tract No. 3 continued

into the mid-1950s, with 17 buildings constructed between 1946 and 1954. Additionally, the records indicate

that one of the residences (1450 Cottonwood Place) was built as recently as 1987, although this date may be

a typographical error. Aerial photographs confirm that majority of the buildings constructed during the post-

war period were located on arterial streets (e.g. Charleston Boulevard and Maryland Parkway).

In recent years, the boundary of the subdivision was expanded to the south of Tract No. 4 to include two

parcels of land to the east and west of S. Maryland Parkway (see Figure 45). The tract located to the west of

the road currently serves a parking lot for the adjacent St. Anne Catholic Church and Parish School, both of

which are located to the east of the road at 1813 and 1901 S. Maryland Parkway (Photograph 18). The

Photograph 15. 1018 Yucca Avenue within the Tract No. 1 of the Huntridge Neighborhood, constructed in 1942, facing southeast (Source: Logan Simpson).


Photograph 16. 1034 Franklin Avenue within Tract No. 5 of the Huntridge Neighborhood, constructed in 1944, facing south (Source: Logan Simpson).

Photograph 17. 1141 Francis Avenue within the Tract No. 2 of the Huntridge Neighborhood, constructed in 1944, facing north (Source: Logan Simpson).


Figure 45. Huntridge Neighborhood as it appears today (Source: Google Earth).


Photograph 18. Parking area (visible at west) and St. Anne Catholic Church and Parish School (visible at right) located within the current boundaries of the Huntridge Neighborhood (Source: Google Earth).

church, which is currently a parish of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas, was founded in 1947 (. This

date is questionable, however, as the lot is vacant in a 1950 aerial photograph. Later photographs confirm

that the lot remained undeveloped until 1965. Aerial photographs also confirm that the parking lot was added

to the west of S. Maryland Parkway sometime between 1994 and 1999. Buildings of unknown function were

present on the northern half of the lot as early as 1950 and remained until 1994. Additionally, two parcels

were removed from within the original Tract No. 2 boundaries (see Figure 45). The largest of the parcels

bisects the John S. Park Elementary on the northwest corner of Sweeney Avenue and S. 10th Street, and the

smallest parcel consists of the northeast corner of the lot on E. Oakey Boulevard and S. 10th Street. The

reason for the removal of these lots is not known.

The park (known today as Huntridge Circle Park) was officially dedicated in February 1944 after it was

deeded by the developer to the city (Painter 2005:10). The area remained undeveloped, however, as late as

1949 due to disagreements among city officials over who should be hired to construct and landscape the

park (Painter 2005:10). The lack of development within the park is evident in a 1949 aerial photograph

showing the Huntridge Neighborhood (Figure 46). The aerial photograph also confirms that the neighborhood

was predominantly built out by this date. Several large trees are visible along the eastern and western edges

of the park in a 1965 aerial photograph, and parking lots on either side of the park are present by 1973. Later

aerial photographs suggest that the park didn’t take on its current configuration until 2004, with this design

modified substantially by 2013 (Photograph 19 and Photograph 20).


Figure 46. Aerial photograph showing development the Huntridge Neighborhood, ca. 1949 (Image reprinted Painter 2005). Circle Park is visible near the top of the photograph.

Mayfair Homes Subdivision (1941–1946)

Tract 1 of the Mayfair Homes Subdivision—or the last of the three subdivisions constructed in Las Vegas

under the Title VI program—was platted by E. A. Clark and his wife Adeline on October 16, 1941 (Figure 47).

The rectangular-shaped tract consisted of six blocks (e.g., Blocks 1–6) containing a total of 103 lots. The

tract was located to the north of E. Charleston Boulevard and south of Fremont Street, and included lots to

the west and east of S. Fifteenth Street and S. Bruce Street, respectively. The Ladd Addition, platted in 1911,

bordered the tract to the northwest, and the Vega Verde Addition within the John S. Park Historic District and

the Huntridge Neighborhood were located south of Charleston Boulevard to the southwest and southeast of

the subdivision. Lots on the northern and western sides of the subdivision were oriented to face S. Fifteenth

and Fremont Streets, with the remaining interior lots facing Carson and Lewis Avenues, Sixteenth, and

Seventeenth Streets. Similar to other WWII era housing developments, lots within the tract were

predominantly rectangular and measured 60 feet wide and 120 feet long, although larger, irregularly-shaped

lots were present adjacent to street curves. The tract also included one triangular-shaped lot on the northern

end of Block 1 to be used for utilities. With the exception of the utility lot, which was to be surrounded by a

planting strip on three of its sides, all of the lots had 11 feet of setback.

On March 16, 1942, the Las Vegas-Review Journal ran an advertisement announcing a grand opening for

Mayfair Homes Tract No. 1 to be held the following day (Figure 48). Homes within the development were

described in the announcement as nearing completion—a claim supported by Clark County Assessor’s data

which confirms that 86 single-family homes within the subdivision were completed by 1942. The


Photograph 19. Circle Park as it appears today, facing north (Source: Logan Simpson).

Photograph 20. Circle Park as it appears today, facing south (Source: Logan Simpson).


Figure 47. Mayfair Tract No. 1, as platted on October 16, 1941 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor, Las Vegas).


Figure 48. Advertisement for the Mayfair Addition appearing in the March 16, 1942 edition of the Las Vegas-Review Journal (Image reprinted from newspaperarchive.com).

advertisement further boasted that the development contained 60-foot-wide by 120-foot-long lots, paved

streets, curbs and gutters, and lights; was connected to the city sewer; and provided residents with an

“unobstructed view of the Las Vegas Valley” (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 16 March 1942). It also noted that

homes within the neighborhood could be purchased with FHA mortgage insurance.

Two days later, the newspaper published an article about the Mayfair Homes neighborhood, noting that more

than 300 homes, as well as a business district, were planned for the completed subdivision. Homes were

described as wood frame and stucco construction, with 40 elevations and 10 floor plans available to buyers

(Las Vegas-Review Journal, 18 March 1942). Similar to the other Title VI neighborhoods, the dwellings were

to be constructed so that no two identical homes were present on the same block (Mooney 2003c:10). All of


the homes were to be single-story and contain six rooms, including two bedrooms, one bathroom, a kitchen,

a dinette, and a living room. Some of the homes also offered attached or detached garages

(Mooney 2003c:10). Additional features included electric heat and air-conditioning and tiled sinks (Mooney

2003c:10). The article further noted that the entire project had been approved by the FHA , with the first tract

laid out in accordance with “FHA plans for new tracts, eliminating alleys and providing for curved streets to

slow traffic in residential areas” (Las Vegas-Review Journal, 18 March 1942).

In April and May of 1942, Clark filed two additional plats (Mayfair Tract Nos. 2 and 3) to the north and south

and east of the original tract, respectively (Figure 49). Interestingly, the third tract was filed one month before

Tract No. 2, with additional owners listed as Ernest and Nellie Allen and the Pioneer Title Insurance and

Trust Company, with Vice President M. M. Sweeney as signatory. The relationship of these men to Clark is

not known. In addition to Clark, husband and wife Earl A. and Sonya Honrath are listed as owners of the

second tract. Earl’s name appears at the bottom of the 1942 advertisement for the subdivision’s grand

opening (see Figure 48), which suggests that despite not being listed as owner on the first or third tracts, he

was involved with the development of the subdivision. Combined, Tract Nos. 2 and 3 added an additional

265 lots to the subdivision, bringing the total number of lots available for construction to 368. In addition to

the residential lots, Tract No. 2 also included a parcel along its western edge for the construction of a

grammar school, identified on the plat as the “Las Vegas Grammar School District No. 12,” as well as

triangular-shaped parking area to the south of an alley connecting N. Seventeenth Street and Bruce Street

(see Figure 49). Tract No. 3 also differed from the other two tracts in that all of the lots along the north side of

Fremont Street were reserved for commercial development.

Today the Mayfair Homes Subdivision contains 326 commercial and residential properties (Figure 51).

Construction years for 325 of these properties are included in Table 4. The remaining building—located at

1512 Fremont Street—has a build date of 1933, or eight years prior to the platting of the neighborhood’s first

tract. This is likely a typographical error and the original building was presumably constructed in 1943.

Assessor’s data suggests that the majority of the buildings remaining in Tract Nos. 1 and 3 were constructed

during the WWII era (Photograph 21 and Photograph 22), with most buildings in Tract No. 2 built between

1946 and 1969. Additionally, 11 of the buildings within Tract Nos. 1 and 2 were constructed after 1970.

An examination of aerial photographs dating from 1950 to 2005 confirms that all of the lots within Tract Nos.

1 and 3 were developed by 1950. Houses were also present along the interior streets of Tract No. 3, with lots

along the north side of Charleston Boulevard, the west side of Circle Drive, and south of Fremont Street

largely undeveloped by this time. These photographs suggest that the development of the tract first occurred

in the interior and subsequently moved out towards the arterial streets. Later aerials confirm that Tract No. 3

was completely built out by 1965, with few changes occurring to any of the tracts after this date.

As noted in Mooney (2003c:11), many of the homes within the neighborhood have been altered by additions,

window replacement, and other exterior façade modifications. The homes vary in condition from moderate to

poor, with many of the homes on the verge of condemnation. Much of the original landscaping is also no

longer intact.


Figure 49. Mayfair Tract No. 2, as platted on May 30, 1942 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor, Las Vegas).


Figure 50. Mayfair Tract No. 3, as platted on April 3, 1942 (Image courtesy of the Clark County Assessor, Las Vegas).


Figure 51. Mayfair Homes Subdivision as it appears today (Image taken from Google Earth). Note that three lots originally part of Tract Nos. 2 and 3 have been excluded from the current subdivision boundaries.


Photograph 21. 228 N. Seventeenth Street within Tract No. 3 of the Mayfair Subdivision, constructed in 1943, facing east (Source: Logan Simpson).

Photograph 22. 210 Spencer Street within the Tract No. 2 of the Mayfair Subdivision, constructed in 1942, facing west (Source: Logan Simpson).


Table 4. Build dates for single family residences currently located within the Mayfair Addition (Source: Clark County Assessor’s office, Las Vegas).

Construction year

Tract Number Total (%)

Tract No. 1 Tract No. 2 Tract No. 3

1942 86 50 — 136 (41.9)

1943 — 1 66 67 (20.6)

1946–1959 3 91 2 96 (29.5)

1960–1969 — 14 1 15 (4.6)

Post 1970 2 9 — 11 (3.4)

Total no. of Buildings

91 165 69 325 (100.0)

Recent data from the Clark County Assessor’s Office suggests that three parcels have since been removed

from the subdivision boundaries (see Figure 51). Two of these lots were originally part of Tract No. 2, and

one was located within Tract No. 3. The northernmost lot within Tract No. 2 currently houses a strip mall and

the southernmost parcel serves as a station for the Las Vegas Fire and Rescue Department. The parcel

within Tract No. 3 is located on the southeast corner of Stewart Avenue and N. 15th Street and includes a

commercial building that is currently being used as a church. The reason for the removal of the lots within the

subdivision is unknown.

Context 3: Racial Segregation and the Development of West Las Vegas

Although the preceding eight subdivisions were constructed to provide war time housing for an influx of

workers to Las Vegas, the developments were restricted to white residents. The following context is

presented to address the housing conditions for African Americans in the Las Vegas area, who were subject

to various forms of de facto segregation. Other minority groups, including Chinese and Mexican Americans,

composed relatively low percentages of the overall Las Vegas population during the first half of the twentieth

century, largely due to discriminatory policies that continued into WWII.

The Chinese, who migrated to Nevada during the Railroad building era of the late nineteenth century, were

subject to hostilities from whites who considered them a threat to employment opportunities. These

sentiments were codified in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, re-enacted in 1902, which restricted Chinese

immigration to the U.S. The act was not repealed until 1943 during the height of the war (Lyle 2014). The

population of Mexican Americans in Las Vegas in 1910 totaled 56 persons. During the Great Depression the

U.S. enacted restrictions on Mexican immigration and also adopted a policy of deportation for Mexican

immigrants who had not gained citizenship (Lyle 2014a). Additionally, in 1931 the state legislature passed

legislation which banned “aliens” from operating gambling houses in Clark County which resulted in casino

employers not hiring persons who looked like a “Mexican” or “undocumented worker” (Miranda 1997:106).

Mexicans and Mexican Americans also faced segregation in public areas such as parks, theaters, dance

halls, and swimming pools (Miranda 1997:106–107). These policies are reflected by the fact that in 1950 the

total population of Mexican Americans in Las Vegas included just 200 persons (Lyle 2014a).


While the population of African Americans in Las Vegas was also relatively small in comparison to the Euro-

American population, unlike other minority groups, their population continued to steadily climb in the early

twentieth century. Following the founding of Clark’s Las Vegas Townsite in 1905, African Americans began

migrating to the settlement to work for the newly-established branch of the San Pedro, Los Angeles, & Salt

Lake City Railroad (Fitzgerald 1981:4; Nevada Humanities Council n.d.). Records for the 1910 Federal

census confirm that many African Americans worked as machinists or electricians, and that some owned or

operated their own businesses. According to Las Vegas resident Clarence Ray, a professional gambler of

African American heritage, there were no “poor blacks” in Las Vegas. Those who were unable to find

employment in Las Vegas simply moved on to other western states, such as California or Utah (Blue and

Coughtry 1991). Despite the opportunities for employment in Las Vegas, the African American population

remained small, and by the close of 1910, only 40 of the townsite’s 945 residents—or less than 1 percent of

the total population—were African American (Nevada Humanities Council n.d.).

In 1917, Walter Bracken, local manager of the LVL&WC, attempted to initiate a process that would restrict

African American residents to Block 17 of the townsite. Although formal segregation laws or those evicting

African Americans who already owned property were never passed, most African Americans lived on or

around Block 17 in residences, rooming houses, or tents in a narrow area bordered by First Street on the

west, Fifth Street on the east, Ogden Street on the north, and Stewart Street on the south

(Fitzgerald 1981:45).

The 1920 U.S. Census lists a small population of African Americans within Las Vegas, totaling 52 persons,

while the white population totaled 2,304 persons. Perhaps due to the low population, housing and the public

education system within the City of Las Vegas were not formally segregated in the 1920s. Historian Claytee

White notes that 12 people of the population of 52 African Americans were property owners who lived in the

downtown area (White 2004:73). She also described relations among early racial groups as relatively

harmonious during the 1920s (White 2004:73). However, the development of the Hoover Dam in the 1930s

shifted the dynamics of race relations within Las Vegas (Chattel 2015).

African American residents of Las Vegas came together to form a branch of the National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1928 in order to facilitate gaining employment for the new dam

project. However, none of the initial 4,000 men hired for the dam construction work were African American

(White 2004). The Las Vegas NAACP responded to this news by organizing, calling on regional groups for

support, and lobbying Las Vegas mayor Ernie Cragin. This effort resulted in 44 jobs being opened to African

Americans, although this was a miniscule number in comparison to the thousands of white construction

workers hired for the project. The new white workers to the region also brought with them attitudes of race-

based prejudice which impacted Las Vegas when they came to town seeking goods and services and

entertainment and sought segregated facilities (White 2004).

Newspaper accounts suggest that during the 1930s African Americans were forced to move outside the city

limits to an area of the city commonly known as the “Westside,” across the San Pedro, Los Angeles, & Salt

Lake City Railroad tracks (Anderson 2012:9; Blue and Coughtry 1991:30; White and Michel n.d.). A

February 1931 article in the Las Vegas-Review Journal states that “colored residents” were making plans to


remove to the Westside; and another article printed in May 1932 confirms the “removal of the colored district”

to the Westside in advance of the construction of the Federal Post Office on Stewart Street (Mooney

2003d:13). Historians disagree on the causal factors behind this relocation. Fitzgerald (1981:10) argues that

segregation in Las Vegas was driven by the construction of Hoover Dam and the burgeoning tourist industry

which “systematically ushered” black residents out of the downtown area to create more space for tourists

(Fitzgerald 1981:10). During an interview with students from UNLV, Clarence Ray asserted that African

Americans were not ordered to move, but rather opportunistically chose to sell their properties when property

values downtown rose significantly and “blacks got to where they could sell their land for a big profit” (Blue

and Coughtry 1991:32). It has also been noted that after 1943, city officials including Las Vegas Mayor Ernie

Cragin refused to renew black-owned business licenses unless they relocated their businesses from

downtown to the Westside (Palm 1977:3; White 2004). Clarence Ray refuted this claim stating, “when blacks

started selling their downtown properties, it was said that they were asked to move out. That’s not true. A lot

of things that they said about Ernie Cragin was mostly street talk. I never heard him say any of these bad

things, and I knew him quite well” (Blue and Coughtry 1991:32).

Whatever the cause for the relocation, by the close of the 1930s, numerous African Americans owned

businesses that had been established in the Westside area, including several cafes and barber shops, a

community grocery store, and a two-story hotel. The redlining policies of the FHA during the 1930s further

contributed to the pattern of African American occupancy within the Westside, as black home ownership

prohibited developers from gaining FHA financing and caused them to restrict residency to white owners.

In 1939, white residents also petitioned the city for zoning that would eliminate blacks from residing in certain

parts of the Westside. The petitions were sent to the city attorney for legal determination, and were ruled in

violation of the Fourteenth amendment of the Constitution. Despite this ruling, landlords and housing

developers systematically refused to rent and sell to black residents.

In general, the living conditions on the west side of Las Vegas were poor. According to Woodrow Wilson, a

labor activist and African American resident of West Las Vegas in the 1940s, most people rented enough

land on which to erect a small tent or shack; many of the structures were erected beneath mesquite trees in

an effort to shade residents from the harsh desert sun. Cooking was accomplished on a communal-type

stove, which was situated outside the tent, and many families pooled their efforts to prepare food for their

families (Coughtry and King 1999:57). Most structures lacked electricity or running water, and outhouses and

communal toilets were common until the sewer was extended to the Westside in the 1950s (Coughtry and

King 1999:58). Despite continued lobbying efforts on the part of African American residents of West Las

Vegas to receive infrastructure improvements in the 1930s and 1940s, city leaders stated that the low

property values of the Westside did not warrant city expenditures for improvements (White 2004).

On June 25, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802 which, in part, proclaimed

“there shall be no discrimination in the employment of workers in defense industries or government because

of race, creed, color, or national origin.” It further ordered that all government contracts with defense

industries include anti-discrimination provisions (Fitzgerald 1981:7). Between 1942 and 1944, the African

American population of Las Vegas soared, largely due to the construction of Basic Magnesium, Inc. and the

provisions of EO 8802. Production at Basic Magnesium commenced in 1941, and the plant operated until the


fall of 1944. Prior to WWII, the black population in all of Clark County did not exceed 180; three years later,

the black population in West Las Vegas alone numbered over 3,000 (Blue and Coughtry 1991:35). BMI

employee Woodrow Wilson noted that blacks typically worked “manual labor” and “menial” jobs, with most

“assigned to the jobs in the units where the hot metal was being handled and down in the preparation

building where it was hot” (Coughtry and King 1990:33). He further noted that turnover was low, as the work

was “so much better” than their previous work in southern states of origin such as Mississippi, Louisiana,

Alabama, and Arkansas (Coughtry and King 1990:33).

More than 4,000 African Americans arrived in southern Nevada during the first two years of BMI’s operation.

While EO 8802 stated that there would be no discrimination in government employment, these policies did

not extend to housing, which—for those who worked at BMI—was fully segregated. The Hammes-Euclemiler

Company of Los Angeles, California built Carver Park in the Basic Townsite (now Henderson) for the African

American employees of BMI between 1941–1943; the development, which consisted of multi-family homes

comprising 324 units, was designed by prominent African-American architect Paul R. Williams in 1941

(Figure 52). The development was located on the east side of Boulder Highway near Lake Mead Drive; it had

64 units for single workers, 104 one-bedroom units, and 52 three-bedroom apartments, as well as a school

and recreation hall (Lyle 2012). On October 14, 1943, the first African American residents of Carver Park—

Mr. Robert C. Williams, his wife Rosie, and their children Theodore, Cleopatra, Roscoe, Clarice, and

Yvonne—moved into the development (Figure 53) (Lyle 2012). The development later housed black airmen

from Nellis Air Force Base. Interestingly, Wilson noted that although “excellent housing for the time,” the

Carver Park development never reached its full capacity because “there wasn’t anything out near Carver

Figure 52. Carver Park, date unknown (Image reprinted from Lyle 2012).


Figure 53. Mr. Robert C. Williams, his wife Rosie, and their children Theodore, Cleopatra, Roscoe, Clarice, and Yvonne—taken on October 12, 1943 (Image reprinted from the University of Nevada’s Documenting the African American Experience in Las Vegas website [http://digital.library.unlv.edu/aae/timeline#14], accessed on 9 March 2015).

Park that was close,” and people “didn’t want to be bothered by staying that far from the action” in West Las

Vegas and Las Vegas proper (Coughtry and King 1990:41–42).

The FHA continued its policy of maintaining the color line when providing mortgage insurance during the war,

justifying it along economic lines such as the stabilization of resale values. In Las Vegas, the first major

private housing project to be constructed during the war was the Huntridge development. The development

provides an example of how the FHA’s race-based policies influenced neighborhood developers, as those

neighborhoods of “mixed-race” were frowned upon by the agency. In an interview with Las Vegas resident

and labor activist Woodrow Wilson, he notes that:

A young white kid from Arkansas came here. He had saved $150, and I had about $500. He was

working in stores and I was working in stores [warehouses] at BMI. We were riding to work together,

and we came by the Huntridge area. He applied for one of the houses over at Huntridge. They were

asking for a $300 deposit on the house. He had $150.

I wanted to buy a house, too, and I told them I had $300 I’d deposit. “Sorry, we can’t accept your

$300.” They were asking $300, but they accepted his $150 deposit. I thought it was totally ridiculous

to set aside a housing project and segregate it, but they refused my application emphatically. They

weren’t permitting blacks to live there. They were that bold! They were that bold all over Las Vegas!


Those Huntridge houses were nice houses and cheap—dirt cheap. They were a tremendous buy.

Blacks were forced to live in West Las Vegas. You could have had the First National Bank and it

didn’t matter. Black people had money. Money wasn’t the problem; it was a restrictive, discriminatory

practice that was the problem (Coughtry and King 1990:50).

In July 1942, it was noted in the Las Vegas Review-Journal that housing conditions in West Las Vegas were

“deplorable,” declaring that, “tents, shacks, and sometimes nothing at all except beds are being placed in the

vacant property…” (Mooney 2003d:17). Families of six or more were living in one-room cardboard shacks,

the majority of which lacked running water and sewer service (Figure 54). When city building inspector R. S.

Norton was asked to review the area for code enforcement, he replied that he had no jurisdiction unless a

permit was issued. He was subsequently given jurisdiction by the city board and was ordered to determine

the best way to halt the building of additional shacks. One solution he proposed was to construct a trailer

camp facility for black workers. The Federal government approved $29,000 to construct the trailers, as well

as two utility buildings, four garbage platforms, a sewer disposal area, and a water system. It is unclear

when, or if, these improvements were made in the Westside, but nearly six months later, a December 1942

article in the Las Vegas Evening Review-Journal notes that a health study was to be conducted within West

Las Vegas due to concerns over the potential for epidemics due to unsanitary conditions (Las Vegas Evening

Review-Journal, 16 December 1942).

Figure 54. Housing conditions in Westside Las Vegas, ca. 1942 (Photograph courtesy of the Nevada State Museum, Las Vegas).


As WWII came to an end, the poor living conditions on the Westside could no longer be excused by the lack

of building materials and wartime housing shortages. The city decided that the best way to handle this public

embarrassment was through mass slum clearance. Between September 1944 and April 1945, roughly

375 substandard shacks and cabins, and 50 privies were demolished or razed with no plans by the city for

replacement. It is not clear where the residents of these houses relocated. It wasn’t until the construction of

Marble Manor—an FHA-sponsored public housing project of 50 duplexes built on the southwest corner of

Washington and H Street—that strides were made to improve living conditions for the city’s African American

community (Figure 55). Three years later—in 1954—the Berkley Square subdivision was platted. This

neighborhood, which was designed by prominent African American architect Paul R. Williams and named

after one its financiers, Oakland civil rights activist Thomas L. Berkley, provided an additional 148 single-

family homes; although, this was a considerably small number based on the city’s population of 16,000 black

residents(Painter 2007).

Figure 55. Aerial photograph of the Marble Manor public housing project, ca. 1952 (Image reprinted from Housing Authority of the City of Las Vegas, Nevada [1952]).

SECTION II: ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT

Residential Architecture of Las Vegas during WWII

In the pre-WWII era, national trends in residential architecture included the development of the prominent

Period Revival styles which included a number of subsets such as Colonial Revival, Spanish Colonial

Revival, Cape Cod Revival, and Tudor Revival. The Craftsman style, which gave birth to the Bungalow, also

emerged as one of the most popular styles of the early twentieth century. The Bungalow, as a rejection of

late nineteenth century Victorian ornateness, was spare in its detailing. The rectangular-shaped form of the

building was more utilitarian in nature and incorporated gabled roofs with wide overhanging eaves. The front

roofline often extended past the main façade creating large covered porches which proved ideal in sunny hot


climates (McAlester and McAlester 2004; Myers et.al. 2010). However, with the standardization of housing

materials initiated by the FHA during the Great Depression years and the material restrictions faced

throughout WWII, an even less adorned, modest type of residential architecture emerged on the national

scene in the early 1940s; in its most refined application this movement which included the development of a

broad range of types and architectural styles would eventually become known as the Modern period.

The Minimal Traditional type represents the earliest of the Modern architectural expressions to emerge in

residential subdivisions. The type predates WWII and remained popular into the 1950s. Borrowing from

aspects of the Tudor Revival and Bungalow, these one-story homes included medium-pitched roofs with front

gable variants as well as hipped roof variants with modest overhanging eaves. The rectangular-shaped

homes were generally small and possessed limited detailing and served as an embodiment of FHA principles

of “small house” design (McAlester and McAlester 2004; Mooney 2003a). The Minimal Traditional type of

housing became the predominant architecture type in Las Vegas during World War II.

The Impact of the FHA on Residential Housing Design

In the first years of the Great Depression, the American housing industry saw a precipitous decline in new

housing construction. With a primary goal to stimulate housing construction, Congress passed the National

Housing Act in 1934 to provide mortgage insurance on new construction and to assist with refinance of

owner-occupied housing. The FHA served as the implementing agency of the legislation and, in the interest

of creating sound investments, called for the creation of uniform guidelines in housing design and

construction. The FHA recognized a broad need for modest, affordable housing which could be constructed

throughout the country and created technical bulletins with specific plans that developers as well as

individual builders could use.

The chief reference guide put forth by the FHA technical division was Principles of Planning Small Houses,

first released in 1936 and reissued throughout the 1940s. The house plans presented in the Bulletin

recognized the primacy of maintaining functional space within a small home. Along these lines, the bulletin

also advised builders to consider the placement and orientation of the home on the lot to achieve optimum

ambient temperature, natural light, and views. The square-shaped home, for example was touted as

preferable over irregular forms, as uniform squares allowed for conservation of materials (Federal Housing

Administration 1940a). Additionally, the bulletin called for simple, lower-pitched roof lines which emphasized

the horizontal mass of the dwelling. In a foreshadowing of the ranch style yet to be popularized, the bulletin

noted “exterior proportions are also improved by setting the house as low on the ground as possible”

(Federal Housing Administration 1940a:37). The bulletin also specifically stated that “simplicity in exterior

design gives the small house the appearance of maximum size. The fewer different materials used on the

exterior the better the appearance usually will be” (Federal Housing Administration 1940a:37). Despite

exhortations for simplicity, the bulletin suggested varying the materials between houses as well as varying

building orientation on the lots in an effort to promote heterogeneity in subdivisions (Figure 56). Ultimately, it

was the “small-home” guidelines developed by the FHA that fostered the development of the “Minimal

Traditional” style home with its small, rectangular-shaped form, low to medium pitched roofs, and uniform

wall materials (Quimby McCoy Preservation Architecture 2012).


Figure 56. FHA’s depiction of how to achieve variation among small houses through varying material selection and building orientation (Image taken from Federal Housing Administration 1940a).

War-time Restrictions and Impacts upon Housing Design and Construction

With the onset of World War II, the ability of developers to acquire construction materials became

increasingly restricted; as such, opportunities to vary facades through different material use became more

limited and building appearances became more standardized. A 1941 article in the Las Vegas Review

Journal noted the potential impacts of war time restrictions on the housing construction industry. Lumber

company owner Ed Von Tobel noted that “priorities on metals, raw materials and finished products which go

into a home may in the near future cause delays in buildings and remodeling in many circumstances” (Las

Vegas Review Journal, 13 September 1941:5). Von Tobel quoted J.C. Nichols of the federal Office of

Production Management as stating there was an existing need for 200,000 houses for defense workers with

the potential for an additional 200,000 over the next year which would further strain limited construction

material resources (Las Vegas Review Journal 13 September 1941:5). Recognizing the need to coordinate

the efforts of various federal agencies involved in the production of war-time housing, the following year

President Roosevelt created the National Housing Agency, an umbrella agency charged with oversight of 16

separate agencies- including the FHA (Mason 1982).

In July 1942, the War Production Board (WPB) issued a directive which formally restricted the distribution of

construction materials within the national housing industry. Both private and public housing developers were

required to submit preference ratings for materials distribution which were limited to areas considered

essential to the war effort (War Production Board 1942). The WPB and the National Housing Agency also


adopted War Housing Construction Standards, which impacted the design of dwellings by limiting the

location, materials, and maximum floor areas of homes, as well as restricting materials used for plumbing

and heating installations (Federal Housing Administration 1943:6). The WPB specifically noted, “wherever

possible, designs should make use of substitutes for all the metals, but where necessary, designs must be

such as to use a minimum amount of them. Similarly, lumber use must be scrutinized with an eye toward the

employment of marginal grades and sizes, and dimensions selected that will result in a minimum of cutting

waste in regard to materials” (War Production Board 1942:1). Amendments to Standards in 1943 did allow

for a small increase in the maximum square footage of construction to “improve the livability of dwellings”

(Federal Housing Administration 1943:6).

Interestingly, because the WPB restricted the use of common materials such as steel, copper, and lumber

the FHA made allowances in its standard construction requirements for the acceptance of alternate materials

and construction methods. However, while the WPB called for all construction to “be of the cheapest,

temporary character with structural stability only sufficient to meet the needs of the service which the

structure is intended to fulfill during the period of its contemplated war use”, the FHA continued to stress the

importance of “sound structural quality as a requirement of houses to be financed with FHA-insured

mortgages” (War Production board 1942:2; Federal Housing Administration 1943:9). In this respect, the FHA

did not cede authority for wartime residential construction to the WPB, but continued to collaborate with

developers in critical defense areas in order to assist with community and architectural planning (Federal

Housing Administration 1943). As the war progressed, the Minimal Traditional type continued to play a

significant role in the architecture promoted by the FHA, and its modest size and detailing conveniently

conformed to WPB standards.

Manifestation of National Architectural Trends in Las Vegas Residential Subdivisions

In the pre-WWII era, the residential architecture of Las Vegas largely followed national trends, namely

adopting the prominent Period Revival styles which included a number of subsets such as Colonial Revival,

Spanish Colonial Revival, Mission Revival, Pueblo Revival, Cape Cod, Spanish Eclectic, and Tudor Revival.

As the city entered the Great Depression and the FHA became involved in fostering residential development,

revival styles in Las Vegas were replaced by the Minimal Traditional style. Mooney (2003b) reports that early

variants of the Minimal Traditional style in Las Vegas included adaptations of Cape Cod Revival stylistic

elements.

Minimal Traditional Cape Cod variant residences can be seen in the form of rectangular-shaped buildings

with horizontal, symmetrical facades, steep, side-gabled roofs, and a central gabled front porch. The porch

gable may also include a classical pediment. The rectangular-shaped multi-lite windows also frequently

include decorative shutters. The walls are either brick or have clapboard siding and an interior brick chimney

is nearly always present (Stokes et.al. 2007).

Minimal Traditional type houses draw characteristics from period revival as well as bungalow styles. These

single-story homes are box-like and can take either rectangular or L-shapes; although rectangular-shape is

predominant. The low-pitched roofs are of the gable or hip variety with virtually no eave overhang. A small

front porch is typically present along the main façade. The walls of the buildings were generally brick and at


the time of their completion, could be painted or unpainted. There is typically no decorative detailing along

the façade. The use of steel-casement windows was common but wood frame windows can also be found

(Stokes et.al. 2007).

Ranch style architecture developed contemporaneously with and gradually replaced the Minimal Traditional

architectural type as its more elongated floor plan readily lent itself to the growing needs of larger families in

the U.S. California architect Clifford May, who designed the first modern Ranch style home in 1932, is

credited with popularizing the Ranch style in the post-war era with his series of articles published in Sunset

magazine during the 1940s (Maxwell and Massey n.d.).

Early Ranch style homes in Las Vegas shared many characteristics of the Minimal Traditional architectural

style including one-story massing and horizontality, but favored L-shapes with projecting front gables. The

rooflines became lower in pitch and incorporated wider overhanging eaves. Large picture windows were

incorporated into the front elevation and entry doors were typically located under porches. The carport, and

later garage, became a prominent feature of the home. These features were often incorporated under the

existing roofline which further added to the horizontal expanse of the front facade. The placement of the

carport also allowed for economically feasible conversions to rooms for additional space (Maxwell and

Massey n.d.). Over the next two decades, Ranch style homes expanded in size and incorporated more

elaborate detailing and multiple building materials. While hesitating to create an official definition of Ranch

style architecture, Clifford May stated “most of us describe any one-story house with a low, close-to-the-

ground silhouette as a ranch house. When a long, wide porch is added to this form, almost everyone accepts

the name. And when wings are added and the house seems to ramble all over the site, the name is

established beyond dispute” (May 1946:IX).

Biographies and Professional Contributions of Architects, Builders, Developers, and Corporations

Biographical and historical information on selected architects, developers, builders, and corporations who

worked in Las Vegas between 1941 and 1945 is provided below. Background research suggests that the

majority of the developers and architects are American born and white. Additionally, all of the individuals are

male, although some women—namely the wives of developers—are listed as owners on historic plats. In

general, developers discussed below are typically native Nevadans who became well known and powerfully

connected through organizations, business opportunities, or politics. The majority of these men were

politicians or entrepreneurs who experimented in the real estate industry as a means to supplement their

wealth. Only one professional architect—Orville Albert Bell—was identified during the archival research

effort. Like many of the builders, Orville resided in Phoenix, Arizona where he designed a number of public

Depression era buildings and single-family residences in at least two neighborhoods. Builders consist of both

small-scale, family owned businesses and large corporations with multiple offices across the West.

Beckley Subdivision

Guy Dewey Mathis

Guy Mathis, the builder responsible for the construction of at least two homes within the Beckley Addition,

was born in Gainesville, Texas on November 5, 1898. A WWI registration card indicates that he was still

living in his hometown as late as 1918 and was employed as farmer. In 1920 and 1930, he is listed in the


Federal Census Schedule for Amarillo, Potter County, Texas as a “house carpenter” (Census of Population

and Housing 1930). Sometime between 1930 and 1940, Mathis migrated to Las Vegas where he continued

to work in the housing industry as a building contractor (Census of Population and Housing 1940). He

resided in the city along with his wife Alma A. and son Guy, Jr. until his death on June 3, 1984.

Biltmore Addition

A. E. Tiffany and Orville Albert Bell (Biltmore Homes, Inc.)

A. E. Tiffany and Orville A. Bell were affiliated with Biltmore Homes, Inc., the corporation responsible for

platting the first (1941) phase of the Biltmore Addition (Mooney 2003b:9). At the time of the neighborhood’s

platting, Tiffany was the corporation’s vice president and Bell was listed as its secretary (Mooney 2003b:9).

While no information on Biltmore Homes, Inc.’s association with Las Vegas was discovered, historic

newspaper accounts suggest that a corporation of the same name was constructing subdivisions in Long

Beach, California during the late 1940s and early 1950s. It is unclear, however, if the two corporations are

affiliated.

Interestingly, A. E. Tiffany and Orville Bell also appear to have been newcomers to the Las Vegas real estate

scene when they platted the Biltmore Addition in 1941. While little evidence exists to suggest that either of

the men were associated with the development and/or construction of additional subdivisions in Las Vegas,

archival research indicates that both were prolific in the Phoenix, Arizona real estate market as early as the

1920s. In 1925, A. E. Tiffany and his brother Herb C. Tiffany, Sr. formed the Tiffany Construction Company.

Orville Bell was an engineer as well as a prominent Phoenix architect. Bell was born in Blaine, Maine to

Israel G. and Alberta L. Bell on November 30, 1904. He eventually relocated to Athens, Ohio, where he

obtained a bachelor’s degree in Architectural Engineering from Ohio State University in 1927. In 1930, Bell

moved to Phoenix and teamed with Vere Olney Wallingford to form the architectural and engineering firm of

Wallingford & Bell (Casey and Stein 1991).

During his time in Phoenix, Bell designed a number of important Depression era public buildings, including

the Arizona National Guard Armory, Phoenix High School, the Publix Market (1930), and the west wing

addition to the State Capitol Building (1939) (George 1992). He also designed single-family residences in at

least two Phoenix neighborhoods—the North Encanto (1939–1956) and Encanto-Palmcroft (1927–1942)

subdivisions—both of which are listed in the NRHP (Denny 2002; Minor and Brevoort 1983). Bell was closely

affiliated with the FHA, and was purportedly the first architect to file an application for an FHA-insured

mortgage after establishment of the Arizona office in 1934 (Minor and Brevoort 1983). Additionally, his

residential designs—perhaps most notably the Nuckles House (1938), a one-story Pueblo Revival style

residence within the Encanto-Palmcroft neighborhood—was widely publicized by the FHA in Phoenix

newspapers during the mid- to late 1930s (Minor and Brevoort 1983). One of the streets within the addition is

named Encanto, possibly as homage to the Phoenix neighborhoods, and the name of the addition proper

may pay tribute to the famed Arizona Biltmore Hotel—which was designed by Albert Chase McArthur in

1929, with the assistance of Frank Lloyd Wright (Graham et al. n.d.).


A. P. Maynard, Albert “Al” E. Cahlan, Archie C. Grant, and E. W. Clark (Victory Homes, Inc.)

These four men were associated with Victory Homes, Inc., the corporation responsible for the platting and

construction of homes within Annex Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the Biltmore Addition. At the time of the first plat’s

filing, A. P. Maynard was the corporation’s president and A. E. Cahlan was secretary. The archival research

effort did not yield any information on A. P. Maynard. His name appears on the plat for the first annexation

only, which suggests that he may have stepped down or was replaced as the company’s president between

the filing of Annex Nos. 1 and 2.

The remaining men—Clark, Cahlan, and Grant—were, according to Mooney (2003b:11), “extremely well

known and powerfully connected local businessmen and politicians who were linked personally through

various project collaborations and civic affairs.” Perhaps the most well-known of these men was E. W. Clark,

a pioneer resident and prominent political and community leader (Figure 57). Clark’s importance to the city of

Las Vegas was recently summarized in a Las Vegas Review-Journal article, which stated:

The power structure of Las Vegas in the ‘30s was headed by Ed W. Clark. Ed Clark was to Vegas

what George Wingfield was to Reno. He controlled most of the economy of the community through

his banking facilities (Hopkins 1999a).

The article went on to state that Ed was responsible for appointing members of the city and county

commission and other powerful bodies within the state (Hopkins 1999b). Ed was born to Jacob C. and Julia

Clark in San Jose, California in 1877 (Hopkins 1999b). Ed’s father passed away soon after his birth, and Ed’s

mother moved the family to the silver town of Pioche where she operated a boarding house for miners

(Hopkins 1999b). Ed helped his mother with her business until the age of 17, at which point he started his

own cattle business in northern Lincoln County. As Pioche was without a railroad siding, Clark also went into

the freighting business, eventually forming a partnership with Charles C. Ronnow of Panaca (Moehring and

Green 2005:23). Together, under the name the Ed W. Clark Forwarding Company, the men transported

freight from the end of the Union Pacific Railroad in Milford, Utah to the mining communities of southern

Nevada. The men eventually migrated to Caliente, where Clark continued to operate his freighting company

and served a brief stint as the town’s postmaster (Hopkins 1999b).

When the railroad came to Las Vegas, Clark and Ronnow moved their business to a wood-frame building

within the newly-formed Clark Townsite2 (Moehring and Green 2005:23). The men changed the name of the

company to Clark County Wholesale and diversified their business to provide food and other items to miners

in addition to hauling freight (Moehring and Green 2005:23). In 1906, Clark was elected treasurer of Lincoln

County (Hopkins 1999b; Moehring 1989). One of his first acts as treasurer was to shift the county deposits

from Pioche to the First State Bank in Las Vegas, a move which helped him become the bank’s director in

1909 (Hopkins 1999b). He went on to become president of the bank in 1926 following the retirement of

partners John S. Park and J. Ross Clark. He held this position until 1937, when he sold the bank to the First

National Bank of Nevada (Hopkins 1999b). Clark also advocated for the formation of Clark County and was

2 Townsite founder William Clark was of no relation to Ed Clark.


Figure 57. Ed W. Clark, date unknown (Image reprinted from http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/ed-clark).

promptly elected its treasurer when the county was established in 1909 (Hopkins 1999b). He went on to

become the president of Consolidated Power & Telephone Company, the city’s first power and telephone

company, and like other prominent Las Vegans, he was also instrumental in the construction of Hoover Dam

(Hopkins 1999b; Moehring and Green 2005:23). In addition to serving 25 years on the interstate commission

that ultimately persuaded Congress to build the dam, he is credited with conceiving the amendments that

gave Nevada shares of the power and water that it provided (Hoover 1999b). He also served as Nevada

delegate for the Democratic National Convention in 1936 and 1944, and was a member of the Democratic

National Committee for the state of Nevada in 1939.


Interestingly, Clark never married and had no descendants. He lived with Ronnow and his wife next to their

business on Main and Clark Streets until his death in April 1946. Numerous buildings and structures named

after Clark are present in Las Vegas today. Among them is Nevada Energy’s Ed W. Clark Generating Station

(1954)—the state’s oldest steam-powered generating plant—and the Ed W. Clark High School (1965). The

school, which is located at 4291 Penwood Avenue, is the only high school in Clark County to be named after

a person.

Second-generation native Nevadan “Al” E. Cahlan was an influential journalist, politician, and community

activist. Cahlan was born in Reno in 1899 and remained there until graduating from the University of Nevada

with a degree in electrical engineering (Hopkins 1999). He was employed as an engineer for the Nevada

State Highway Department for several years after graduation, before moving to Las Vegas in 1921, where he

taught math and science at Las Vegas High School (Online Nevada Encyclopedia n.d.). He continued to

work summers with the highway department, and in 1922, moved to Elko where he worked for them full-time

(Hopkins 1999a). While in Elko, Cahlan met newspaper publisher Frank Garside, who eventually purchased

the Clark County Review and hired Cahlan to manage it (Hopkins 1999a; Mooney 2003b:11). Upon

accepting the management job, Cahlan returned to Las Vegas, where he became acquainted with Ed W.

Clark and together, the men are credited with controlling the political scene in Las Vegas during the 1930s

and 1940s (Hopkins 1999a). In fact, the men were so close that Cahlan’s brother John often referred to Al as

Clark’s lieutenant (Hopkins 1999a). Cahlan used his affiliation with the newspaper to promote community

events and voice his opinions on Nevada civil issues (Mooney 2003b:11). He was made a partner of the

newspaper in 1928 and in that year was responsible for convincing the Clark County commissioners that

election officials should remain present at voting locations until all the votes were counted, which resulted in

the news room having early access to election results. The following year, Garside and Cahlan bought out

the Las Vegas Age, a competing publication, and the name of the newspaper was changed to the Evening

Review Journal (Online Nevada Encyclopedia n.d.).

Between 1930 and 1960, Cahlan published a popular but controversial daily editorial-page column entitled

“From Where I Sit,” which was later mocked by founder of the Las Vegas Sun, Herman “Hank” Greenspun, in

his daily publication “From Where I Stand.” He also sold advertisements (Hopkins 1999a). In 1949, the

newspaper was purchased by Donald Reynolds, with the agreement that either he or Cahlan (who remained

managing director) could buy the other one out. Between 1926 and 1960, he transformed a 300-circulation

weekly into a daily with 27,000 subscribers, the largest in the state (Hopkins 1999a). Reynolds exercised his

option and bought out Cahlan on December 11, 1960. Cahlan remained active in politics and business,

variously serving as a representative in the Nevada Assembly, a chairman of the state central committee and

on the Las Vegas Planning Commission, as well as service as a committeeman for the Democratic National

Committee.

He is often most remembered for his role on the Colorado River Commission where he lobbied for Nevada to

purchase the Basic Magnesium Plant following its closure in 1944. He also collaborated with U.S. Senator

Pat McCarren in drafting legislation for Federal Aviation Administration air mail contracts. He also wrote

numerous articles on the city’s history and his early memories of the city, before passing away from

complications resulting from a stroke in 1968 (Mooney 2003b).


Figure 58. Cahlan family photograph, with Al E. Cahlan seated at center, date unknown (Image reprinted from http://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/al-cahlan).

Archie C. Grant was the first University of Nevada regent from Southern Nevada and was one of the

strongest voices for the creation of the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV). He was born in Ely,

Minnesota in 1896. He attended college, married, and began his career as a businessman in Minnesota, but

a 1947 Las Vegas Review-Journal article called him a “transplanted native son” of Las Vegas. He came to

Las Vegas in 1928 and purchased a Ford dealership, which he managed for 27 years before selling it in

1955. He was also involved in management of the Bank of Nevada from 1953 until his death in 1974. He was

a member of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce in the early 1930s, eventually becoming the board’s

president. At the same time, he worked with Nevada legislators who were writing new laws for legalized

gambling and was credited with helping shape that legislation. Profits he made from real estate purchases

allowed him the free time to become more involved in politics. He ran for governor in 1934, losing in a six-

way democratic primary. He ran again in 1954, losing again. In between his gubernatorial bids, he served a

term in the Nevada Assembly and one in the state Senate. He became chairman of the Las Vegas Housing

Authority when it was created in 1947 and served in that position for 20 years. After the war, Grant turned his

attention to the town of Basic (known today as Henderson).


In 1952, Grant ran successfully for the office of University of Nevada regent, which put him in the position to

advocate for the creation of UNLV. Despite resistance, he helped procure land for a campus and his

continued efforts contributed to the UNLV’s opening in 1953 (Taylor 2014).

Mayfair Subdivision

Earl A. Honrath and Edmund A. Clark (Home Builders’ Corporation)

These two men—both of whom were prominent land developers and real estate agents and brokers in Las

Vegas in the late 1930s and early 1940s—were responsible for the development of the Mayfair Addition

(Mooney 2003c). The most prolific of the men, Edmund Clark, was well known in Las Vegas for his 1937

campaign for the U. S. Marshal Service’s (USMS) race. He was also listed as a licensed real estate broker in

the Nevada State Journal for the years 1931, 1937, 1941, and 1943, with offices at 908 South First Street

during the 1930s, and 1900 Fremont Street in the 1940s (Nevada State Journal, 18 December 1931; 16 April

1937; 13 May 1941; 31 March 1943).

Missouri native Earl Adolph Honrath is listed in the 1930 Federal census as residing at 518 Main Street with

his wife, Donna and their two daughters Pauline and Donna Jean; his occupation at the time of the census

was “real estate salesman” (Census of Population and Housing 1930). By 1940, census records indicate that

Earl’s wife is deceased, and he is employed as an auto court clerk. In a death announcement for Donna, Earl

is described as a “prominent Las Vegas and Boulder City business man” (Reno Evening Gazette,

27 March 1940). An obituary for Earl also suggests that he was a merchant, operating a woman’s clothing

store named the Polly-Jeanne Shop after his daughters until his death in 1968 (Mooney 2003c).

A newspaper advertisement for the sale of homes within Tract No. 1 suggests that by March 1942, Honrath

and Clark may have formed a corporation known as the Home Builders’ Corporation to protect their joint real

estate investments (see Figure 48). Although their roles are not clear, interestingly, in 1944 the corporation

received a six month suspension by the Wartime Production Board (WPB) for selling project dwellings to

non-war workers and also for selling the dwellings above ceiling prices. This offense, which was in direct

violation of a prior agreement between the corporation and the WPB, prohibited Home Builders’ Corporation

from “receiving properties or delivery of building materials” until January 1, 1945 (Nevada State Journal,

1 July 1944). While it is unclear if the offenses involved the Mayfair neighborhood, it’s interesting to note that

construction within Tract No. 2 of the addition continued into the late 1940s, with some homes built into the

mid-1950s (Mooney 2003c:10).

E. H. Wallace

Mooney (2003c:11) also credits Earl H. Wallace with the development of Tract No.1 of the Mayfair

Subdivision. The role that E.H. Wallace played in the original development is not clear; however, he does not

appear on the plats for tracts 1, 2, or 3 which were filed in October of 1941, and April and May of 1942,

respectively. Interestingly, newspaper accounts confirm that on October 24 of that year, Wallace was one of

12 people killed when an army bomber collided with an American Airlines transport plane in route from Los

Angeles to New York (Reno Evening Gazette, 24 October 1924). The crash, which was widely publicized by

the media, occurred about 0.5 mile west of Palm Springs. Wallace was purportedly in route to Phoenix,

Arizona at the time of the accident (Reno Evening Gazette, 24 October 1924).


G. “Lee” Cochran

Little information could be found for Lee Cochran, the builder responsible for the construction of homes within

Tract 1 of the Mayfair subdivision. A brief obituary printed in the November 18, 1964 edition of the Las Vegas

Sun refers to Cochran as a “custom homebuilder.” According to the obituary, Cochran was the builder for the

1963–1964 Mason Manor development, a neighborhood of 32 “executive homes” located along Mason Drive

between Campbell and Cahlan Drives (Las Vegas Sun, 18 November 1964). He was also active in civic and

charitable activities, which included serving as the King Lion of the Breakfast Club. At the time of his death,

he resided at 1901 S. Seventeenth Street with his son, Harry (Las Vegas Sun, 18 November 1964).

Horace Shidler (Horace Shidler and Son)

According to Mooney (2003c), a newspaper article (source not provided) attributes Horace Shidler and his

son Harold as being the developers of the first Mayfair Tract. A Walla Walla, Washington native, Horace

graduated from the University of Toronto and relocated to Long Beach, California after joining the U. S. Navy.

Shidler was one of the first pilots trained in WWI, where he became a prisoner of war after being shot down

in combat over Germany (Hallas 1995:197). After returning to the United States, he moved to Los Angeles,

where he became involved in the building trade and completed his first housing project. In 1942, he came to

Las Vegas and continued to work in the construction industry, building numerous single-family residences

(including those in the Mayfair Addition) and commercial buildings. According to a 1942 WWII Draft

Registration Card, he operated his contracting business from his residence at 324 Fremont Street. He briefly

left Nevada in 1948 to build a subdivision in Twin Falls, Idaho, but returned the following year after suffering

a stroke. He continued to work in the construction business, and was active with numerous organizations

including the Fred S. Pennington post of the Veterans of Foreign Affairs and the American Legion. He was

also the founder of both the Hollywood and Las Vegas chapters of the Optimist Club, an organization

dedicated to encourage children to participate in community service. Horace continued to work alongside his

son in Las Vegas until July 1952, when he was hospitalized after suffering a series of paralytic strokes.

Horace eventually passed away on July 6, 1952 at the age of 58 (Reno Evening Gazette, 10 July 1952).

Vega Verde Addition

George Franklin and John Law (Franklin & Law Developers)

These two men formed Franklin & Law Developers in 1945, and together sponsored the building of the

majority of the homes in the eastern half of the Vega Verde Addition (Mooney 2003a). Franklin was

employed as a mechanical and aeronautical engineer until 1929, when the stock market crash forced him to

seek other means of employment. In 1934, he relocated to Las Vegas to operate a real estate business and

initiate the city’s FHA program. Initially, Franklin ran his business from an office in the Federal Building on

Stewart Street; however, after 1939, he relocated to a home on 1112 Fifth Place where he continued his real

estate and development business and continued to serve as the city’s first FHA Commissioner.

Franklin’s partner John Law was a chief petty officer in charge of recruiting from the U.S. Navy in Las Vegas

(Mooney 2003a:31). Additional information on Law was not found during the archival research effort.


Frank Beam

Frank Beam was George Franklin’s partner before the 1945 founding of Franklin & Law Developers. In 1941,

Beam and Franklin purchased 55 acres of land from William S. Park and LeRoy and Mary Dutton on which

Franklin and Law Developers would later develop the Vega Verde Addition. A Pennsylvania native and well-

known Las Vegas lumberman, Beam’s partnership with Franklin was short-lived, however, as he died of a

heart attack on December 16, 1941, just months after he and Franklin had purchased the land (Reno

Evening Gazette, 16 December 1941). Although retired at the time of his death, Beam remained owner of the

Beam Lumber Company, the supplier for most of the lumber to be used for the construction of homes within

the addition (Reno Evening Gazette, 16 December 1941). Although little information could be found on

Beam, it is presumed that he was an important figure in the Las Vegas community, as a building named after

both he and his wife is present on the UNLV campus. The building—known as Frank and Estella Beam

Hall—was built on the campus in 1983 and currently houses the William F. Harrah College of Hotel

Administration and the Lee Business School (Gueco 2014).

Francis Griffith, Norman Winston, and Thomas A. Oakey (Realty Development Corporation)

These three men were associated with the Realty Development Corporation, a Nevada corporation, which

platted the Huntridge Development. Dr. Francis Griffith was president; Norman Winston was vice president;

and Thomas A. Oakey was secretary. A December 1941 article in the Las Vegas Evening Review Journal

states that the three men were “experienced in this type of housing project, having directed many major

housing programs of the same character throughout the country” (Las Vegas Evening Review Journal, 20

December 1941). Archival research, however, did not yield any information on Dr. Francis Griffith.

Preliminary research suggests that Norman K. Winston, of New York, gained wealth and notoriety as a

housing developer, and subsequently married socialite Rosita Fletcher (Life 1947). The origin of Winston’s

association with Griffith and Oakey is not known, however.

In addition to Thomas Oakey’s involvement in the Huntridge subdivision, he was also the owner of the

Huntridge Develoment Corporation which contracted the development of the Huntridge Theater, which

opened in 1944. Oakey was also a part owner in the theatre with Commonwealth Las Vegas Theater, Inc.

According to (Lenz 1993:1), while the Commonwealth Las Vegas Theater organization dissolved, Oakey

found new partners for the enterprise in actresses Irene Dunn and Loretta Young. It is clear that Oakey also

continued to operate the Huntridge Development Corporation into the 1950s as city directories for the period

between 1954 and 1957 list him as the president and general manager (Luskey Brothers & Co. 1954; 1957).

Archival research, however, did not result in any further biographical information for Mr. Oakey.

Kenneth Jones

Painter (2005) notes that Kevin Jones—an employee of the Land Planning Division of the FHA—designed

homes within the Huntridge Addition. Additional research revealed little additional information on Mr. Jones.

One article in the Reno Evening Gazette, dating to 1940, states that Jones helped Norman Blitz Associates

design the Greenfield subdivision in Reno (Reno Evening Gazette, 16 November 1940).


McNeil Construction Company

The Los Angeles, California corporation of McNeil Construction Company was responsible for the

construction of the Huntridge Neighborhood, the largest of the three Las Vegas subdivisions built under the

Title VI program. The corporation was founded by Nova Scotia native John Vincent McNeil, who migrated

from Boston, Massachusetts to Los Angeles 1886. Prior to moving to California, McNeil worked as a

carpenter and sought special instruction in architecture and building construction. He eventually became

qualified to handle larger construction projects and served as superintendent of construction on various

important structural enterprises in Massachusetts. During the first two years in Southern California, McNeil

worked as a supervisor for a contracting company; however, in 1888, he left the company to start his own

contracting company known as the McNeil Construction Company, which he operated along with his son

Lawrence W. for the next 50 years.

In the first 20 years of its operation, McNeil’s company erected numerous public and private buildings within

the city of Los Angeles, including schools, office buildings, manufacturing plants, hotels, and residences.

Notable buildings constructed by the company include the Cohn Goldwater Building (1909); Newark Brothers

Building (1906); Merritt Building (1914); Chester Williams Building (1926); Sun Drug Company (1920);

Orpheum Theater Building (1925); Eastern Columbia Building (1930); Ninth and Broadway Building (1929);

Foreman and Clark Building (1928–1929); Union Bank/Hill Street Annex (1923–1925); Union Bank & Trust

Company Building (1921–1922); Cooper Building (1923–1924); and the Main Mercantile Building (1905–

1906) (v Neighborhood Planning and Land Use Committee 2015). The company quickly became one of the

most successful builders in Southern California, in part because of its use of concrete and focus on heavy

construction (Press Reference Library 1913).

When John passed away in July 1938, son Lawrence W. took over the company, developing it into a sizable

construction concern during the WWII era. In 1941, the company completed the Linda Vista Subdivision, a

large-scale defense housing project near San Diego (Figure 59). The housing development was the first

project initiated in the city to be constructed under the Lanham Act and contained 3,000 single- and multi-

family homes to be occupied by the workers in the city’s aircraft and defense industries (Killory 1993). At the

time of its completion, the project was the largest defense village in the United States and the world’s largest

low-income housing development with a projected occupancy of 13,000 residents (Killory 1993; Reno

Evening Gazette, 27 November 1941).

Perhaps the most notable of the company’s projects in Nevada in the 1940s was their construction of the

BMI manufacturing plant and associated Basic Townsite in present-day Henderson. On September 6, 1941,

the company was awarded a $63,000,000 contract for construction of the 1.75-mile-long by 0.75-mile-wide

plant (Reno Evening Gazette, 6 September 1941). They were also awarded a contract for the construction of

the townsite, known as the Basic Townsite, to house workers of the plant. In addition to providing 1,000

“temporary” homes, the townsite also included a school, hospital, and stores (City of Henderson

Redevelopment Agency, n.d.).


Figure 59. Overview of the Linda Vista subdivision, built by the McNeil Construction Company in 1941 (Image reprinted from Killory 1993).

The second largest structural steel job in the world, the BMI project employed over 16,000 workers and

generated a weekly payroll of $1,100,000 during its construction. Of these workers, more than 7,000 were

employees of the McNeil Construction Company, making them the largest company on the payroll (Nevada

State Journal, 27 January 1943). The company’s work on the project was overseen by Lawrence’s son Bruce

who served as superintendent in charge of all operations (Cahlan 1942; Nevada State Journal, 27 January

1943). Upon its completion in November 1943, the facility was the world’s largest magnesium plant (Nickel

2012:8). Due to the massive scale of the undertaking, numerous announcements congratulating the

company of their completion of the project were published in the newspapers across the state by other local

contractors also involved in its construction (Figure 60).

Following the completion of BMI and the Basic Townsite, the company went on to construct other industrial

facilities across the southwest. In 1951, they submitted the lowest bid for the construction of buildings at the

Frenchman’s Flat atomic test range (later known as the Nevada Test Site), a project funded by the Atomic

Energy Commission in southeastern Nye County (Reno Evening Gazette, 3 May 1951). That same year, the

company was also awarded contracts for the construction of a mill on the Henderson Lake Mead Highway for

Manganese, Inc. and a new unit at the Western Electrochemical Company in Henderson (Nevada State

Journal, 25 August 1951; 25 September 1952). The company is also credited with the construction of the

Dunes Hotel in Las Vegas in 1955, suggesting that their portfolio expanded outside of the energy and

defense industrials to include commercial development.


Figure 60. Announcement congratulating the McNeil Construction Company on their completion of the Basic Magnesium Project (Image taken from the Reno Evening Gazette, 24 November 1943).

Charleston Square

Lembke Construction Company

An article in the Las Vegas Evening-Review Journal suggests that Lembke Construction Company served as

the building contractor for the construction of 156 homes within the Charleston Square Subdivision. The

company, which was selected on behalf of Mastercraft Homes, Inc., was led by Jack Chapman, who

provided much of the information on the neighborhood’s development for the article. Archival research

yielded no information on Jack Chapman. Annual statements for the years 1942 and 1943 printed in the

Nevada State Journal list Charles H. Lembke as the company’s secretary and Edward L. Lembke as its

president (Nevada State Journal, 27 January 1943; 21 January 1944). The statements further indicate that

the company was headquartered in Albuquerque, New Mexico, with a local office in Las Vegas. By 1952, the

company had grown to include additional offices in Colorado and Idaho (Becker 2005:1–2).

Newspaper articles indicate that the company was involved in a number of federal- and city-sponsored

construction projects during the 1940s and 1950s, including the construction of a 25-acre housing

development for married enlisted Army personnel employed by the Las Vegas Army Air Force Gunnery

School (Reno Evening Gazette, 16 December 1941). This development (presumably the Grandview

Addition) consisted of 25 acres and contained 125 housing units. The contract for the development totaled

$440,334 and was funded by the Public Buildings Administration. M. J. Grewe served as general

superintendent of the housing project (Reno Evening Gazette, 19 September 1941). They were also


responsible for the construction of an addition to the Clark County Hospital in 1944, a contract which they

held with the Federal Works Agency of Washington, D. C. (Reno Evening Gazette, 24 April 1944). In 1951,

they teamed the contracting firm of Clough and King to build a dormitory at the Nevada Proving Grounds

(also known as the Nevada Test Site). Upon its completion, the building became the first permanent facilities

to be constructed at the site (Becker 2005:1–2). Other buildings constructed by the company during the

1940s and 1950s include the city’s first convention center (1959), McCarran Field (now McCarran

International Airport) (1948), the Dunes Hotel (1955), the Fremont Hotel (1956), the auditorium at Las Vegas

High School (now the Las Vegas Academy of International Studies, Performance, and Visual Arts (date

unknown), the Westside School Annex (1948), and the city’s first wastewater treatment plant (1958)

(Becker 2005:1–2; Nevada State Journal, 23 February 1958).

Beginning in the late 1950s, the company undertook numerous construction projects on the University of

Nevada, Reno campus, as well as the Nevada Southern University campus in Las Vegas. Newspaper

articles suggest that only one building was constructed by the company in 1959 (Nevada State Journal,

3 May 1959). The name of the building and its location within the campus was not provided. Projects on the

University of Nevada, Reno campus included a housing complex for married students, a dining hall, a men’s

dormitory, and a fine arts building, all of which were awarded in fall of 1960. Interestingly, newspaper articles

suggest that the university’s board of directors threatened to oust the company from at least two of these

projects because of delays and the fact that the company was so far behind schedule. This battle was

covered by both the Reno Evening Gazette and Nevada State Journal. The outcome of the conflict was not

reported, however.

Tee Construction Company

Tee Construction Company was responsible for the development of at least 58 homes within Tract No. 2 of

the Charleston Square Subdivision (Reno Evening Gazette, 14 October 1948). The company was headed by

Richard “Tony” Toleno of Las Vegas and Reuben Speckter of Los Angeles. A 1954 Las Vegas city directory

lists Toleno as the building contractor for Tee Construction Company. He also served as President of the

Paradise Realty Company, a company that had a net worth of $250,000 at the time of its incorporation in

1950 (Reno Evening Gazette 1950). No information could be found on Speckter.

In addition to the Charleston Square Neighborhood, the Tee Construction Company was responsible for the

construction of homes within at least one additional subdivision in Las Vegas. This development, known as

the Paradise Park/Village Neighborhood, is a post-war subdivision generally located between Paradise

Road, E. St. Louis Avenue, E Sahara Avenue, and Van Patten Place. The neighborhood was surveyed by

Logan Simpson in 2012 and 2013, and was subsequently recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP as a

historic district under Criteria A and C with a period of significance of 1950 to 1955 (Rayle and Ruter 2012;

2013).

SECTION III: ASSOCIATED PROPERTY TYPES

The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) represents the Nation’s official list of properties considered

worthy of preservation. The National Park Service (NPS) Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register

Criteria for Evaluation, provides guidance to owners of properties, local governments, state and federal


agencies, and professionals on the eligibility criteria for listing a property in the National Register. The

National Register recognizes five categories of properties: buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts.

Districts, as a property type, represent collections of buildings, structures, sites and/or objects that are unified

either by historical development or design (United States Department of the Interior 1989).

The National Register Bulletin Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for

the National Register of Historic Places (Ames and McClelland 2002) provides the most comprehensive

framework for assessing the eligibility requirements for listing residential housing. Residential subdivisions,

as collections of domiciles linked through association with comprehensive planning efforts and/or

architectural design render themselves particularly amenable to NRHP evaluation under the “district”

property type. However, there may be instances in which individual single-family or multi-family dwellings will

be individually eligible for listing.

In order to be eligible for listing in the NRHP, buildings, structures, sites, objects and/or districts must

possess significance under one of the four established criteria:

association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history

(Criterion A);

association with the lives of persons significant in our past (Criterion B);

embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction,

representation of the work of a master, possessing high artistic values, or representing a significant

and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction (Criterion C); or

has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to an understanding of prehistory or

history (Criterion D).

In order to be eligible for listing, the subject property must also be able to convey its significance through

retention of its key character-defining elements. The NRHP concept of integrity allows for the critical

evaluation of the preservation of these elements in terms of seven key variables: location, design, setting,

materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. It is important to note that these elements are weighted

differently for different property types and criteria of significance. For instance, retention of integrity of

workmanship may not play as important a role for a building listed for its association with an important

educator (Criterion B), as it does for a building listed as a representation of the work of a master architect

(Criterion C.)

The context presented in this document provides a general framework for assessing the eligibility of

residential housing in Las Vegas during WWII and establishes a period of significance that encompasses

residential properties that were constructed between 1940 and 1945. The beginning date of the period of

significance has been established to mark the year when the U.S. began to redirect industrial production for

material and munitions stockpiling, a policy decision that would have tremendous impact on the production of

domestic housing. The year 1945 has been selected to mark the end of WWII and the withdrawal of combat

forces from Europe and the Pacific. The period of significance is also an important benchmark for evaluating

integrity; resources eligible for registration under this context must retain the key character defining features


acquired during the period of significance. Alterations introduced after the period of significance should be

evaluated in terms of their impact on the property’s ability to convey these character defining features.

For the most part, the context addresses significance of these resources at the local level; evaluation of the

significance of these properties at the state and national levels would require additional comparative

research on the development of housing in other cities designated as critical defense areas by President

Roosevelt during WWII in order to demonstrate that the resource established a precedent or influenced

subsequent development within a broader region or across the country (per Ames and McClelland 2002).

Research conducted in the current study did not reveal the presence of resources that could be considered

to possess architectural character and/or innovative principals that influenced residential subdivision design

on the national level.

The following section of this document identifies associated property types for listing under each of the four

National Register criteria in association with the contexts provided in this document:

Growth of Las Vegas and WWII-era Subdivision Development

Racial Segregation and the Development of West Las Vegas during WWII

Residential Architecture of Las Vegas during WWII

Individual Single-family Dwelling

Description

Single-family dwellings constructed in WWII era subdivisions predominantly consist of three architectural

styles or types—Minimal Traditional, Ranch, and Cape Cod/”Cottage Style”—although buildings not

conforming to a particular architectural style were also noted during Logan Simpson’s windshield survey of

the John S. Park, Biltmore, Mayfair, and Huntridge neighborhoods. According to McAlester and McAlester

(2004), Minimal Traditional type housing dates to the period between 1935 and 1950. The Minimal

Traditional architectural style became common in the 1930s, in part due to the FHA’s development of

technical bulletins outlining guidelines for the construction of modest affordable housing. These homes

proliferated during WWII as the ability of developers to acquire construction materials became restricted,

resulting in a uniformity of materials and a standardization of styles. The Ranch architectural style developed

contemporaneously and gradually replaced the Minimal Traditional type as its elongated floorplan readily lent

itself to the growing needs of larger families. Use of these particular styles continued into the post-war era as

their simplicity and uniformity allowed for expedient and large-scale production. By utilizing prefabricated

building materials and streamlined assembly methods for home construction, crews could work efficiently

and quickly, thereby keeping the costs of the finished homes low (Ames and McClelland 2002:66). This

allowed lower to moderate-income families, as well as veterans returning from WWII, to purchase homes in

the developments (Ames and McClelland 2002).

While homes constructed in the Minimal Traditional type were typically rectangular with simple, low to

intermediate-pitched hipped or side-gabled rooflines, Ranch style houses were generally rectangular with U-

or L-shaped variants and front or side-gabled roofs. Minimal Traditional style homes were of brick, concrete

block, or wood frame construction with stucco sheathing and wood frame, double hung sash windows. Most

of the homes contained five or six rooms and were between 800 and 900 ft2 in size, although larger models


were available in certain developments. Additionally, some of the homes had attached single-bay carports or

an attached or detached garage. In comparison, the Ranch style homes were constructed of either wood

frame or concrete block and emphasized horizontality through the incorporation of wide eave overhangs and

horizontal multi-lite wood frame and metal casement windows. These homes also contained six rooms,

although they were typically more than 1,000 ft2 in size which allowed for a more open floorplan. Similar to

the Minimal Traditional type homes, attached garages and carports were also common.

Significance

Criterion A

Individual residences constructed in conjunction with any of the eight subdivisions discussed in this context

would generally not be individually eligible under Criterion A for association with the growth of residential

subdivisions in Las Vegas during WWII (community planning and development). As ubiquitous resources

produced in conjunction with subdivision planning efforts, the significance of individual buildings is tied to

their association with subdivision growth. However, an examination of the development of residential housing

in West Las Vegas suggests that residential housing in this area followed a different historical pattern marked

by expedient construction of individual homes without master planned infrastructure and improvements.

Although many of these homes were demolished during postwar “slum clearing” efforts, systematic building

inventory may reveal the presence of residences built between 1940-1945 and thus eligible for individual

listing as rare remaining resources associated with the context of Racial Segregation and the Development

of West Las Vegas during WWII.

Criterion B

Some single-family dwellings may be individually eligible under Criterion B if archival research identifies that

the building’s development and/or use was directly associated with a significant person who made important

contributions to a historical event or broad pattern of history. In order to register a property under this

criterion, areas of significance must be identified that reflect the resident’s contribution to one or more fields

of endeavor (e.g. government, medicine, and education). The individual must also have achieved recognition

in this field while residing at the property. The period of significance for such a property would correspond to

the years that the person resided in it and gained recognition in their field.

Criterion C

Applying the context of Residential Architecture of Las Vegas during WWII to assess the individual NRHP

eligibility of single-family residences under Criterion C would result in thousands of individually listed

residences constructed between the years 1940–1945. It is important to note that the Criterion C significance

of these properties derives from their linkage as contributing buildings in planned developments (districts),

and not for their individual architectural merit. The WWII era single-family dwelling in Las Vegas has

significance under Criterion C because it represents the FHA and War Production Board’s influence on

housing design and construction. However, as mass-produced and ubiquitous housing units, most single-

family residences will derive their Criterion C significance from their contribution to a broader district, or

collection of residential architecture that is “an important example of a distinctive period of construction (or)

method of construction” (Ames and McClelland 2002), rather than association with the “work of a master.”

Nevertheless, although the vast majority of the single-family residences are built in the fairly common


Minimal Traditional or Ranch styles, these dwellings may be individually eligible under Criterion C if they are

a particularly “exceptional example” of their type. An “exceptional example” would be a residence that has

remained virtually unchanged from the time of its initial construction and possesses all of the character-

defining features of its architectural style.

Additionally, a single-family dwelling may be eligible under this criterion if archival research indicates that the

building is a significant example of a work of a recognized architect or master builder. The latter case may

prove more common in the custom subdivisions of Charleston Square and Eastland Heights. The few

remaining single-family residences in Beckley Addition and Sebec Acres may also be individually eligible

under Criterion C as the last remaining examples of residences from these WWII-era subdivisions.

Criterion D

There are no contexts presented in this document to facilitate individual evaluation or registration of a single-

family residence in the NRHP under Criterion D.

Integrity

Location

The significance of residential buildings under Criteria A and C is linked to the respective subdivision

development from which the building derives its association. A building that has been moved would also not

be eligible under Criterion B, as movement of the property would likely create a false appreciation of the

significant person’s residence at a particular address. As such, in order to be individually eligible for listing in

the NRHP under the above mentioned contexts, a single-family residence cannot have been moved from the

location of its original construction.

In order to be eligible for NRHP listing, moved properties must meet the requirements established under

Criteria Consideration B for moved properties.

Design

In order to be individually eligible for listing in the NRHP under the abovementioned contexts, a single-family

residence must possess features of design consistent with Minimal Traditional or Ranch Style. These

features include, but are not limited to modest sized massing with simple box, L-shape, or in the case of

Ranch house, elongated floor plans, cross gabled or cross hipped roof forms, and multi-lite wood double

hung windows. Additions are acceptable if their massing is subordinate to the original structure and

otherwise in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Minimal Traditional and Ranch

styles are defined by their single-story form; second story additions would make a property ineligible for

listing.

Setting

Retention of setting from the period of significance is considered to be of lesser importance to the individual

NRHP eligibility of single-family residences. This is because these buildings largely derive their significance

from association with a broader district. Integrity of setting, however, is an important aspect of district

evaluation.


Individual residences located on the margins of subdivisions where setting has been altered by the growth of

the modern city may still be eligible for listing if they possess integrity of location, materials, design, and

workmanship. Subdivisions such as Beckley Addition and Sebec Acres, where setting has been greatly

compromised, may still contain individually eligible residences.

Materials

Single-family residences addressed under this context were constructed of concrete block, concrete block

with brick veneer, and wood frame with stucco or asbestos siding. Due to imposed material restrictions, wood

roofs would have been less common, and in most cases will not be original to the building. Both wood-frame

and steel-casement windows were used historically, despite material restrictions. Integrity assessments

should take note of the replacement of wood-frame or steel-casement windows with aluminum or vinyl

windows. As ornamentation on buildings would have been rare, integrity issues often involved inappropriate

applications of ornamentation or sheathing such as mosaic tile, stone veneer, and vinyl siding.

Workmanship

Single-family residences addressed under this context can be generally characterized as mass-produced,

using lower grade of product (e.g. lumber); many homes were built within six months. As low cost,

standardized styles of housing, minimal traditional and ranch residences generally exhibit a low degree of

workmanship. However, period building technologies such as multi-lite window glazing and exposed rafter

treatment and the rare elements of ornamentation such as dormers and gablets convey themselves on well-

preserved examples of the styles. Assessments of integrity should make special note of these elements;

however, their absence should not be construed as deleterious to the building’s eligibility.

Feeling

Ames and McClelland (2002) describe the NRHP concept of feeling as an “intangible” quality “evoked by the

presence of physical characteristics that convey the sense of past time and place.” They acknowledge the

difficulty of discriminating feeling from the other six aspects of integrity, noting that integrity of feeling derives

from “the cumulative effect of setting, design, materials, and workmanship.” As indicated above, loss of

setting should not be considered a loss of a critical aspect of a residence’s integrity for individual listing

purposes. However, the building needs to have retained sufficient integrity of design, workmanship and

materials to convey itself as constructed in the 1940s. It will be difficult to discriminate the “feeling” of a

Minimal Traditional type or Ranch style residence constructed during the period of significance covered by

this context (1940–1945) from its postwar counterpart; however, efforts should be taken to document subtle

differences application of modern materials or other incremental changes that may impact the observer’s

overall impression of a mid-1940s residence.

Association

In order to be considered individually eligible for listing under this context, a single-family residence must

maintain its original function or association as a single-family residence. Conversion to multi-family use or

commercial use, as has occurred predominantly in the Beckley Addition and Sebec Acres, would disqualify a

property from NRHP eligibility.


Registration Requirements

To be eligible for listing as a WWII era single-family dwelling under this context, a building must 1) be located

within the incorporated limits of the city of Las Vegas; 2) have been constructed between 1940 and 1945; 3)

possess one or more criteria of significance as articulated above and 4) retain sufficient historic integrity to

convey its significance.

Boundaries

The boundaries for single-family residences proposed for individual listing in the NRHP should conform to the

legal boundaries of the parcel as specified on the deed of purchase or in Assessor’s records.

Multi-family Dwellings

Description

The FHA recognized the need of rental housing in critical defense areas to house those workers who may

not have chosen to remain in an area upon the war’s conclusion. Under Title II (section 203) or Title VI

(section 603), mortgage insurance was also issued for multi-family dwellings. Maximum mortgage loan

amounts were higher for multi-family dwellings than single-family dwellings with the cap for four unit

dwellings initially $10,500 and increased to $12,000 in 1942. While multi-family dwellings constructed in

WWII era subdivisions followed the trends of single-family architecture, their larger sizes and elongated

forms predominantly place them in the classification of Ranch style architecture. According to McAlester and

McAlester (2004) Ranch architectural style developed contemporaneously with and gradually replaced the

Minimal Traditional type; the elongated floorplan of the Ranch style readily lent itself to the growing needs of

larger families.

Use of this particular style continued into the post-war era as its simplicity and uniformity allowed for

expedient and large-scale production. By utilizing prefabricated building materials and streamlined assembly

methods for home construction, crews could work efficiently and quickly, thereby keeping the costs of the

finished homes low (Ames and McClelland 2002:66). This allowed lower to moderate-income families, as

well as veterans returning from WWII, to rent or purchase homes in the developments (Ames and

McClelland 2002).

Ranch style multi-family homes were typically one story, elongated rectangular forms. The rooflines of the

building were predominantly hipped or side-gabled. The buildings were constructed of either wood frame or

concrete block and emphasized horizontality through the incorporation of wide eave overhangs and

horizontal multi-lite wood frame casement windows.

Significance

Criterion A

Multi-family residences constructed in conjunction with any of the eight subdivisions discussed in this context

would generally not be individually eligible under Criterion A for association with the growth of residential

subdivisions in Las Vegas during WW II (community planning and development). As ubiquitous resources

produced in conjunction with subdivision planning efforts, the significance of individual buildings is tied to


their association with subdivision growth. However, an examination of the development of residential housing

in West Las Vegas suggests that residential housing in this area followed a different historical pattern marked

by expedient construction of individual homes without master planned infrastructure and improvements.

Although many of these homes were demolished during postwar “slum clearing” efforts, systematic building

inventory may reveal the presence of multi-family residences built between 1940-1945 and thus eligible for

individual listing as rare remaining resources associated with the context of Racial Segregation and the

Development of West Las Vegas during WWII.

Criterion B

Some multi-family dwellings may be individually eligible under Criterion B if archival research identifies that

the building’s development and/or use was directly associated with a significant person who made important

contributions to a historical event or broad pattern of history. In order to register a property under this

criterion, areas of significance must be identified that reflect the resident’s contribution to one or more fields

of endeavor (e.g. government, medicine, and education). The individual must also have achieved recognition

in this field while residing at the property. The period of significance for such a property would correspond to

the years that the person resided in it and gained recognition in their field.

Criterion C

Applying the context of Residential Architecture of Las Vegas during WWII to assess the individual NRHP

eligibility of single-family residences under Criterion C would result in thousands of individually listed

residences constructed between the years 1940–1945. It is important to note that the Criterion C significance

of these properties derives from their linkage as contributing buildings in planned developments (districts),

and not for their individual architectural merit. The WWII era multi-family dwelling in Las Vegas has

significance under Criterion C because it represents the FHA and War Production Board’s influence on

housing design and construction. However, as mass-produced and ubiquitous housing units, most multi-

family residences will derive their Criterion C significance from their contribution to a broader district, or

collection of residential architecture that is “an important example of a distinctive period of construction (or)

method of construction” (Ames and McClelland 2002), rather than association with the “work of a master.”

Nevertheless, although the vast majority of the multi-family residences are built in the fairly common Ranch

style, these dwellings may be individually eligible under Criterion C if they are a particularly exceptional

example of the Ranch-style as a applied to multi-family housing. Additionally, a multi-family dwelling may be

eligible under this criterion if archival research indicates that the building is a significant example of a work of

a recognized architect or master builder. The latter case may prove more common in the custom subdivision

of Charleston Square where historic-age multi-family dwellings area present.

Criterion D

There are no contexts presented in this document to facilitate individual evaluation or registration of a multi-

family residence in the NRHP under Criterion D.


Integrity

Location

In order to be individually eligible for listing in the NRHP under the above mentioned contexts, a multi-family

residence generally cannot have been moved from the location of its original construction. In order to be

eligible for NRHP listing, moved properties must meet the requirements established under Criteria

Consideration B for moved properties.

Design

In order to be individually eligible for listing in the NRHP under the abovementioned contexts, a multi-family

residence must possess features of design consistent with Ranch style. These features include, but are not

limited to elongated floor plans, side-gabled or cross hipped roof forms, and multi-lite double hung windows.

Additions are acceptable if their massing is subordinate to the original structure and otherwise in

conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The Ranch style is defined by its single story

form; second story additions would make a property ineligible for listing.

Setting

Retention of setting from the period of significance is considered to be of lesser importance to the individual

NRHP eligibility of multi-family residences. Individual residences located on the margins of subdivisions

where setting has been altered by the growth of the modern city may still be eligible for listing if they possess

integrity of location, materials, design, and workmanship.

Materials

Multi-family residences addressed under this context were constructed of concrete block, concrete block with

brick veneer, and wood frame with stucco. Due to imposed material restrictions, wood roofs and steel cased

windows would have been rare, and in most cases will not be original to the building. As ornamentation on

buildings would have been rare, integrity issues often involve inappropriate applications of ornamentation or

sheathing such as mosaic tile, stone veneer, and vinyl siding.

Workmanship

Multi-family residences addressed under this context can be generally characterized as mass-produced,

using a lower grade of construction products (e.g. lumber); many homes were built within six months. As low

cost, standardized styles of housing, minimal traditional and ranch residences generally exhibit workmanship

typical of “assembly line” construction. However, period building technologies such as multi-lite window

glazing and exposed rafter treatment and the rare elements of ornamentation such as dormers and gablets

convey themselves on well-preserved examples of the styles. Assessments of integrity should make special

note of these elements.

Feeling




from “the cumulative effect of setting, design, materials, and workmanship.” As indicated above, loss of


setting should not be considered a loss of a critical aspect of a residence’s integrity for individual listing

purposes. However, the building needs to have retained sufficient integrity of design, workmanship and

materials to convey itself as constructed in the 1940s. It will be difficult to discriminate the “feeling” of a ranch

style residence constructed during the period of significance covered by this context (1940-1945) from its

postwar counterpart; however, efforts should be taken to document subtle differences in size and material

use.

Association

In order to be considered individually eligible for listing under this context, a multi-family residence must

maintain its original association as a multi-family residence. Conversion to commercial use would change the

function of the building and thus impact integrity of association; however, adherence to the Secretary of the

Interior’s Standards to ensure retention of character-defining elements that convey historic residential use

(such as floor plan and the configuration of units) could ensure that integrity of association is maintained.


To be eligible for listing as a WWII era multi-family dwelling under this context, a building must 1) be located




Boundaries

The boundaries for multi-family residences proposed for individual listing in the NRHP should conform to the

legal boundaries of the parcel as specified on the deed of purchase or in Assessor’s records.

Residential Subdivisions

Description

Between 1940 and 1945, builders developed eight subdivisions within the City of Las Vegas, including those

which were developed under FHA guidelines and those which were built on demand. This study has

classified these subdivisions into two subtypes, those of the” built on demand” or custom variety and those

approved under FHA Title VI guidelines. Both subtypes of subdivisions ranged in size and plan, but the

majority exhibited the influence of FHA guidelines which promoted the adaptation of a subdivision layout to

the topography, the adoption of long blocks to remove unnecessary streets, the elimination of sharp corners

and dangerous intersections, and the general abandonment of rectilinear grids in favor of curvilinear grids.

Curvilinear streets were considered advantageous because they provided visual interest and eliminated

dangerous four-way intersections (Ames and McClelland 2002). Two of these subdivisions, Sebec Acres and

Beckley Subdivision, are classified as custom and were platted on small, angular tracts of land which did not

follow the planning methods encouraged by the FHA. The remaining six subdivisions exhibit curvilinear street

patterns, which discouraged through-traffic and incorporated minimal variances in lot sizes and standard

building setbacks.

The subdivisions vary in overall size and in the types of amenities offered. The Huntridge neighborhood, the

largest of all the platted subdivisions, was planned with a park, school, and space for commercial


development. The 17 lot Beckley Subdivision, on the other hand, was platted on a small, triangular piece of

land bounded by three major roads with an interior cul-de-sac access road.

Houses constructed within the subdivisions are by and large classified as either Minimal Traditional or Ranch

style and are characteristically modest in size and in architectural detailing. Due to restrictions on building

materials during the war, homes constructed in subdivisions, be they single or multi-family, possessed more

standardized façades and materials of construction with differences largely characterized by building footprint

and rooflines.

Types

Built on Demand (Custom) Subdivisions

Between 1940 and 1945 developers constructed four built on demand, or custom, home subdivisions. These

subdivisions included the Beckley Subdivision, Sebec Acres, and the Eastland Heights Neighborhood, all of

which were developed in the period between 1941 and 1942. The Charleston Square subdivision, when

platted in 1945, was originally intended to be an FHA development but was later converted to custom

subdivision due to rising costs of production.

As noted, the Beckley and Sebec Acres subdivisions were constructed on small, irregular-shaped pieces of

land and do not exhibit FHA neighborhood planning principles. These plats of land were located adjacent to

major roads and did not incorporate curvilinear interior streets. The lots of the developments were long and

narrow and were not uniform in nature. Due to the erosion of historic fabric within both developments, either

through demolition or demolition and re-development, the bulk of the original residential architecture styles

developed within these neighborhoods is not known. Those dwellings remaining exhibit characteristics of the

Minimal Traditional Style.

Eastland Heights, although developed through conventional financing, is demonstrative of the broader impact

of the FHA influence upon neighborhood planning. As FHA developed standards for the assurance of long-

term home values, these standards by and large were adopted industry-wide. However, it was also not

uncommon for a developer to design a neighborhood with the intent of applying for FHA commitments for

mortgage insurance, as was the case with Charleston Square, and then choose to alter the development to

conventional financing. This particularly became the case towards the end of the war, as inflation drove up

the cost of materials and construction exceeding the FHA’s guidelines on loan amounts and property values.

However, each subdivision adopted curvilinear street layouts which discouraged through traffic. Lots were

fairly uniform in size with a standard range of setbacks. The lots, by and large were wider and shallower in

nature accommodating the horizontal forms of the Minimal Traditional and Ranch style houses within the

developments. Both of these subdivisions consist of multiple subdivision plats and demonstrate the

continuance of neighborhood development in the post-war era. Variations between subdivisions can be

noted in terms of the width of streets, the incorporation of sidewalks, curb and gutters, and landscaping.

FHA-Influenced Subdivisions

Archival research indicates that four FHA-influenced subdivisions were constructed in Las Vegas during the

WWII era. These neighborhoods include the Vega Verde Addition within the John S. Park Historic District


(1941–1945; 1951); the Biltmore Addition (1941–1946); the Huntridge Neighborhood (1941–1946), and the

Mayfair Homes Neighborhood (1941–mid-1950s). Whereas the Vega Verde Addition was constructed in a

manner that allowed home buyers to qualify for FHA Title II financing, the other three subdivisions received

funding under Title VI and were specifically developed to house non-commissioned officers and civilian

employees of the Las Vegas Bombing and Gunnery Range, as well as employees of Basic Magnesium Inc.

and their families.

Each of the FHA-influenced subdivisions contained multiple plats, with the Huntridge Subdivision the largest

in scale. The Huntridge Neighborhood was the first large-scale neighborhood to be designed during the war-

era and is most emblematic of broader FHA neighborhood planning principles. In addition to incorporating

curvilinear street patterns, standardization in lot size and building setbacks, this development was designed

to function as a small-scale community with a centrally located park, a school, and space for commercial

development strategically placed on the major arterial street to the north of the housing development. The

Vega Verde, Biltmore Addition, and Mayfair Homes subdivisions represent smaller scale adaptations of FHA

planning principles. While not designed as communities with multiple amenities, these subdivisions

conformed to FHA subdivision design standards. Mayfair’s layout, with plats distributed across a major

thoroughfare did allow for commercial lots fronting either side of a commercial street. Internally, each plat of

these subdivisions incorporated curvilinear street plans and standardized lot and building placement. The

wide, shallow lots accommodated Minimal Traditional, Ranch, and Cape Cod styles. Variations between

subdivisions can be seen in the width of streets, the incorporation of sidewalks, curb and gutters, and

landscaping.

Significance

Criterion A

Residential subdivisions discussed in this context may be eligible for listing in the NRHP as districts under

Criterion A for their association with the identified contexts: the growth of Las Vegas and WWII-era

Subdivision Development (community planning and development) or Racial Segregation and the

Development of West Las Vegas during WWII (ethnic heritage). The eight custom built and FHA-influenced

subdivisions identified in this context were developed to house an unprecedented influx of workers who came

to the Las Vegas area seeking employment in the defense or service industries. These subdivisions

demonstrate a range of planning and development practices; however, most reflect planning principles

established and perpetuated by the FHA. Due to institutionalized discrimination in subdivision development

at this time, it is important to note that residency in these eight subdivisions was limited to whites.

An examination of housing trends in West Las Vegas during WWII suggests that residential housing in this

area followed a different historical pattern marked by expedient construction of individual homes without

master planned infrastructure and improvements. Although many of these homes were demolished during

postwar “slum clearing” efforts, a systematic building inventory may reveal the presence of residences built in

the period between 1940 and 1945. If a cluster of historic-age buildings is identified that possess integrity of

association (see boundary discussion below) this cluster may be evaluated as a district for its association

with the context of Racial Segregation and the Development of West Las Vegas during WWII.


Criterion B

Ames and McClelland (2012) note that a neighborhood may be eligible under Criterion B if it is “directly

associated with the life and career of an individual who made important contributions to the history of a

locality or metropolitan area.” By and large, subdivisions evaluated under Criterion B are evaluated for their

association with the developer/community builder responsible for their creation. While existing historic

contexts and preliminary research indicate that there were prominent Las Vegas residents involved in the

development of war-time subdivisions, additional research would need to be conducted in order to establish if

these subdivisions are the best representative examples of the life and career of those individuals.

Criterion C

The WWII era subdivision in Las Vegas has significance under Criterion C because it represents the FHA

and War Production Board’s influence on housing design and construction. Comprised of mass-produced

and ubiquitous housing units, the districts will derive their Criterion C significance from their collection of

Minimal Traditional, Ranch, or Cape Cod style residential architecture that is “an important example of a

distinctive period of construction (or) method of construction” (Ames and McClelland 2002), rather than

association with the “work of a master.”

Criterion D

There are no contexts presented in this document to facilitate the evaluation or registration of a district in the

NRHP under Criterion D.

Integrity

In terms of assessing the eligibility of a potential historic district, National Register Bulletin 15 states that the

majority of the resources of the district must maintain integrity, despite being “individually undistinguished”

(National Park Service 1997). As the district, itself, is the NRHP subject property, the evaluation of integrity

must necessarily focus on the district. In general, for the district as a whole to be considered NRHP eligible,

at least 51 percent of its component resources must retain individual integrity, and thus “contribute” to its

eligibility. However, the integrity requirements for a building to be considered a contributor to a district are

often less stringent than those required for a building to be considered individually eligible for listing.

Evaluations of integrity for historic districts should examine the integrity of not only the buildings that

comprise the district, but also the integrity of the landscaping and streetscape (e.g., sidewalks, curb and

gutter, rhythm of setback) in terms of the National Register’s seven aspects.

Location

In order for the district to be eligible for listing in the NRHP under the above mentioned contexts, the

boundaries that historically defined the suburb should largely remain intact, as should the location of streets

and size and shape of lots (Ames and McClelland 2002).

Design

In order for the district to be eligible for listing in the NRHP under the abovementioned contexts, the layout of

housing lots should remain consistent and the vast majority of the individual houses should retain their

essential form and materials. Construction of inappropriate additions and loss of original materials, if visible


on a high proportion of buildings, can erode a district’s overall sense of design and thus render it ineligible for

listing.

Setting

Retention of setting from the period of significance, within the boundaries of a district, is considered to be of

importance to the NRHP eligibility. It is recognized that the setting surrounding a subdivision will change over

time; however, the interior of the subdivision should retain the scenic quality derived from the features which

defined its character during its period of significance, including but not limited to built resources, street

plantings, parks and open space (Ames and McClelland 2002).

Materials

Integrity of materials in a district may refer to “construction materials of dwellings, garages, roadways,

walkways, fences, curbing, and other structures, as well as vegetation planted as lawns, shrubs, trees, and

gardens” (Ames and McClelland 2002). For districts deriving significance under Criteria A or B, less

emphasis is placed on the retention of historic materials. For those districts significant under Criterion C

(architecture), the majority of historic materials on buildings should remain intact. It is recognized that drought

intolerant vegetation (such as lawns)-particularly within a desert climate- is often subject to replacement with

native materials. Removal of original landscaping and replacement with xeric landscaping is not considered

to negatively impact integrity of materials.

Workmanship

These residential districts are characterized by mass-produced housing, using lower grades of products (e.g.

lumber). As low cost, standardized styles of housing, minimal traditional and ranch residences generally

exhibit a generally low degree of workmanship and rather reflect principals of “mass-production” and

“economies of scale.”

Feeling




from “the cumulative effect of setting, design, materials, and workmanship.” In terms of residential districts,

loss of setting within the boundaries of the district, in terms of re-development purposes, is one of the largest

contributors to loss of feeling. Additionally, when a majority of the houses no longer retain integrity of design

and materials, a loss of feeling will occur.

Association

In order for a district to be considered eligible for listing under this context, it must maintain its historic

associations. In other words, it must still reflect a residential subdivision designed under FHA principles.

Large-scale conversion of the development for commercial use or loss of historic design elements through

demolition would disqualify the district from NRHP listing. Conversion of properties from residential to

commercial use on arterial roads is not uncommon; if these occur on the periphery of the district


consideration of drawing the boundary to exclude them is warranted. Individual properties located within the

boundaries of a district which were converted to commercial use should be assessed as non-contributors.


To be eligible for listing as a WWII era residential district under this context, the district must 1) be located




Boundaries

The standard method of suburban neighborhood development involved subdivision of land through a plat

which effectively established the geographical boundaries of the neighborhood, the number and size of lots,

easements, utilities, and the circulation pattern of roads and streets. In terms of defining the boundaries of a

residential subdivision, Ames and McClelland (2012) note that:

Boundaries are typically defined by the extent of a historic subdivision or group of contiguous

subdivisions, particularly where significance is based on design. Factors such as identity as a

neighborhood community based on historic events, traditions, and other associations may be more

relevant and should be considered when defining the boundaries of neighborhoods important in social

history or ethnic heritage.

The WWII era subdivisions identified within this context will principally be evaluated under Criterion A for

community planning and development, and C for architecture and/or planning. In these cases, the

boundaries should be based what the Bulletin defines as the “extent of a historic subdivision,” typically the

original plat boundary for the neighborhood. However, as may be the case for Westside Las Vegas, a district

may be defined for its association with ethnic heritage, with boundaries based upon community identity,

rather than the principles of formal community planning and development.

SECTION IV: GEOGRAPHICAL DATA

The geographical area is within the corporate limits of the city of Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada.

SECTION V: SUMMARY OF IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION METHODS

This submission consists of a technical report with three historic contexts and three property types. These

contexts are: 1) Growth of Las Vegas and WWII-era Subdivision Development; 2) Racial Segregation and

the Development of West Las Vegas; and 3) Residential Architecture of Las Vegas during WWII. The

document includes subdivisions and neighborhoods platted between 1940 and 1945. These dates were

selected to cover the onset of defense production in the United States and the conclusion of the country’s

role in WWII. Property types include single- and multi-family dwellings and residential subdivisions.

Four of the neighborhoods included in this context were the subject of intensive-level architectural surveys

between 2002 and 2014. Beginning in fall of 2002, 20th Century Preservation, a local historic preservation

consulting firm under contract with the city of Las Vegas Planning and Development Department, conducted


comprehensive pedestrian surveys of two FHA-Influenced Subdivisions—the Mayfair and Biltmore Tracts—

as well as the John S. Park Neighborhood (comprised of the Park Place and Vega Verde Additions). In all,

444 individual properties within the three neighborhoods were documented on Nevada SHPO Historic

Resource Inventory Forms (HRIFs) and with black-and-white photographs. It is not known how many of

these properties are residential, however. For the Biltmore Addition, Mooney (2003b) recommended that

buildings within the first three phases should be considered for a more in-depth study in order to determine if

the neighborhood constitutes an NRHP-eligible historic district. In comparison, the Mayfair Homes

subdivision was recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP due to alterations to individual homes

(Mooney 2003c). The John S. Park Neighborhood was subsequently listed in the NRHP as historic district in

May 16, 2003.

In 2005, Painter Preservation and Planning was hired by the city of Las Vegas Planning and Development

Department to survey Tract Nos. 1 and 2 of the Huntridge Neighborhood, and Tract No. 3 was subsequently

inventoried by ICF International in 2014. A total of 282 single-family residences—some of which have been

converted for commercial use—were documented during these inventories. Both consultants concluded that

the Minimal Traditional and Ranch style homes remaining within the development had been altered

significantly and no longer retained sufficient integrity necessary for individual listing in the NRHP (ICF

International 2014; Painter 2005). They also noted that the amount of change in individual houses precluded

the subdivision from having the number of contributing resources necessary for a historic district and

concluded that inventories of the remaining tracts (Tract Nos. 4 and 5) were unnecessary (ICF International

2014; Painter 2005).

Logan Simpson conducted a windshield survey of the other four subdivisions included in this context in

February 2015. The primary purpose of the survey was to examine existing historic-age buildings within the

boundaries established in the historic context report; to define common property types associated with

specific historic contexts; and establish registration requirements for subsequent NRHP nominations of

individual properties and/or historic districts.

Subdivisions built within this context’s selected period of significance (1940–1945) were identified using plat

maps available electronically from the Clark County Recorder’s Office. During the windshield survey, the

architectural style and character-defining features of properties selected for documentation were noted and

digital photographs of selected properties were taken. Additionally, a visual inspection of historic

streetscapes within the identified neighborhoods was conducted to assess such features as building setback,

landscaping and vegetation, sidewalks, curb and gutter treatment, and roadway width and condition.

Upon completion of the survey, Logan Simpson conducted archival research at the Nevada State Museum;

Lied Library on the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) campus; the city of Las Vegas Planning

Department; and the city of Las Vegas Building and Safety Department. The primary goals of this research

were to identify the FHA’s role in shaping Depression era and WWII era neighborhood planning and

architectural trends, and to elucidate how these trends influenced the development of war-time housing in

Las Vegas. Additionally, research was conducted on the growth of defense related industries in the Las

Vegas area in an effort to address war-time population growth. Goals of research also included the


identification of the types of residential subdivisions developed during the war (i.e., government funded, FHA

insured, or “custom-built”) and the developers and/or architects involved in their planning and construction).

Primary and secondary documents, historic maps, oral histories, and manuscript collections housed at these

Nevada repositories provided information on historic patterns of land usage and development of the Las

Vegas Townsite, as well as the architects, builders, and developers initially responsible for filing the WWII

era subdivision tracts and the design and construction of houses in those subdivisions. A search of building

permit records at the Clark County Assessor’s Office was also conducted for all subdivisions except the Vega

Verde Addition; however, original permits for the WWII era subdivisions were not available.

Extensive research was also conducted using online resources such as the Internet Archive

(https://www.archive.org); the HathiTrust Digital Library (www.hathitrust.org); the Las Vegas Age newspaper

digital collection (http://digital.lvccld.org); ancestry.com; and newspaperarchive.com. Particularly useful were

the UNLV Library Digital Collections (digital.library.unlv.edu) and Henderson Libraries’ Digital Collections

(digitalcollections.mypubliclibrary.com) and Historicaerials.com. Whereas the digital collections provided

historic photographs of BMI and Henderson, historic topographical maps for various years and aerial

photographs dating to 1950, 1965, 1973, 1983, 1990, 1994, 1999, 2004, and 2005 were examined on

Historicaerials.com. Property-specific records available online through the Clark County Assessor’s Office

also provided information on original construction dates for buildings within these subdivisions, as well as

building sketches which illustrated their physical dimensions.

SECTION VI: CONCLUSION

Residential subdivision development in the U.S. was generally limited during the period between 1940 and

1945 due to a lack of available funding as well as construction materials reserved for military use, as the

Federal government geared up for entry into the war. Prior to the U.S. housing crisis during WWII, President

Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) under the legislative umbrella of the

1934 National Housing Act (NHA). The agency’s role was to provide an incentive for private developers to

construct new subdivisions. Rather than provide loans or subsidies for housing, the FHA provided insurance

on two types of mortgage loans—those for the repair, remodeling, and redecorating of existing structures (as

identified in Title I of the NHA) and those for the construction of new buildings (as identified in Title II). In

1938, an amendment to Title II of the act was passed in order to encourage the development of “small

homes.” The FHA allowed for insurance on mortgages up to 90 percent of the property value for owner-

occupied homes, whereas the former Title II guidelines limited insurance to 80 percent. This new Title II

program was limited to loan amounts of $5,400 but it served as a great stimulus to the housing construction

sector.

WWII began in Europe in 1939 and the U.S. began increasing production of materials to support allied forces

in 1940. Certain areas within the country, such as Las Vegas, were designated as centers for war time

production, which created population booms and concomitant housing shortages. One of the federal

responses to this crisis was enactment of the Title VI amendment to the NHA in 1941. This amendment

authorized the FHA to insure mortgages up to 90 percent of the home value on one- to four-unit dwellings for

both owner-occupied and builder-owned properties in locations defined as “critical defense areas.” Las


Vegas was designated a critical defense area in June of 1941 which facilitated the development of new

residential subdivisions.

Three Title VI neighborhoods have been previously identified through survey in the city and include the

Biltmore, Mayfair, and Huntridge Neighborhoods. West Las Vegas has also been subject to an intensive level

survey (Mooney 2003) as has Vega Verde, a Title II subdivision that was subsequently listed in the National

Register of Historic Places as part of the John S. Park Historic District in May 2003. In addition to these

neighborhoods, this study documents four custom or “built-on-demand” subdivisions, including Beckley,

Sebec Acres, Eastland Heights, and Charleston Square. Logan Simpson proposes that the city of Las Vegas

Historic Preservation Officer, in consultation with the city’s Historic Preservation Commission, develop a work

plan to prioritize further inventory and evaluation of these subdivisions according to the following

recommendations.

Vega Verde Subdivision

The Vega Verde Subdivision was also previously identified as a FHA Title II development by the city during

preparation of a NRHP nomination for the John S. Park Neighborhood. As the Vega Verde Addition is

currently listed in the NRHP as part of the John S. Park Historic District, no further work is recommended to

assess NRHP eligibility of this neighborhood and its resources.

Biltmore Addition

For the Biltmore Addition, Mooney (2003b) recommended that buildings within the first three phases should

be considered for a more intensive study in order to determine if the neighborhood constitutes a city of Las

Vegas or NRHP eligible historic district. Based on the preliminary archival research and reconnaissance level

survey conducted for this project, Logan Simpson concurs with this recommendation. As the historic

resource survey and inventory was conducted more than ten years ago and buildings were evaluated for

their individual eligibility only, Logan Simpson recommends that the addition be resurveyed and that the

existing HRIFs be updated in order to account for changes in integrity that may have occurred since the

original survey in 2003. Additionally, Logan Simpson recommends that the addition be viewed as a potential

historic district with an evaluation of contributing and non-contributing resources to determine if the district as

a whole possesses the necessary integrity to be NRHP eligible.

Mayfair Homes Subdivision

In comparison, buildings within the first two Tracts of the Mayfair Homes Subdivision were recommended not

eligible for inclusion in the NRHP due to alterations (Mooney 2003c). While the individual eligibility of

buildings within the neighborhood cannot be ruled out based on the research undertaken for this context,

Logan Simpson recommends that subdivision as a whole be resurveyed as a potential historic district with an

evaluation of contributing and non-contributing resources. HRIFs will also need to be updated, as the initial

survey and inventory was conducted in 2003 and is now more than 10 years old.

Huntridge Neighborhood

In the case of the Huntridge Neighborhood, both consultants concluded that the Minimal Traditional and

Ranch style homes remaining within the development had been altered significantly and no longer retained


sufficient integrity necessary for individual listing in the NRHP (ICF International 2014; Painter 2005). They

also noted that the amount of change in individual houses precluded the subdivision from having the number

of contributing resources necessary for designation of a historic district, rendering inventories of the

remaining tracts unnecessary (ICF International 2014; Painter 2005). As Tract Nos. 4 and 5 were also platted

in 1942 and contain 305 lots—or half of the total number of lots within the broader neighborhood—Logan

Simpson recommends that continued survey of the development is necessary in order to determine if it is

eligible for listing in the NRHP as a historic district. Additionally, residences within these two additional tracts

might also be individually eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria B or C and should be evaluated.

In addition to these four developments, Logan Simpson identified four other neighborhoods through archival

research, all of which are examples of “built-on-demand” or custom subdivisions developed by private

investors during the WWII era. These neighborhoods include the Beckley Subdivision (1941), Sebec Acres

(1941), Eastland Heights (1942), and Charleston Square (1945). Limited archival research was conducted on

all of these developments and a reconnaissance level survey of residential properties within these

neighborhoods was completed by Logan Simpson in 2015.

Beckley Subdivision

Logan Simpson recommends that the Beckley Subdivision has no further research potential under this

context. The subdivision has been redeveloped for entirely commercial use and little remains of its original lot

configurations.

Sebec Acres

Although platted during the WWII era, Sebec Acres does not exhibit FHA planning principles and information

on file at the Clark County Assessor’s Office suggests that the majority of the residences remaining in the

neighborhood were built in the post-WWII period, between 1948 and 1964. For these reasons, additional

intensive-level evaluation of Sebec Acres as a historic district is not recommended. However, as a few

residences dating to the initial development of the subdivision remain, Logan Simpson recommends that

these properties be evaluated for their individual eligibility only under Criteria B and C.

Eastland Heights Neighborhood

The first plat of the Eastland Heights Neighborhood was platted in 1941, with additional plats filed within

1945, 1957, and 1959. Although Tract No. 2 was filed within the WWII era, Clark County Assessor’s records

indicate that the first residence within this tract was not constructed until 1949, with build out occurring as late

as 1958. For this reason, Logan Simpson recommends that only those buildings within Tract No. 1 be subject

to an intensive level survey and inventory to determine if individually eligible properties are located within the

subdivision. The neighborhood should also be viewed as a potential historic district with an evaluation of

contributing and non-contributing resources.

Charleston Square Neighborhood

Unlike the other three custom subdivisions, the Charleston Square Neighborhood is unique in that its platting

occurred at a pivotal point in the U. S. housing market—the transition between the development of defense

housing and the housing boom to accommodate returning WWII veterans. Initially planned as a subdivision


for returning war veterans, the development was eventually converted to a strictly non-veteran project after

the first 31 homes within the neighborhood were constructed. The neighborhood consists of four tracts (Tract

Nos. 1–4), the first of which was filed in 1945. The remaining tracts were filed in 1948 and 1949, respectively.

Although records on file at the Clark County Assessor’s office suggest that the earliest home in Tract No. 1

were constructed in 1947, historic newspaper accounts suggest that buildings were constructed as early as

1945. Logan Simpson recommends that buildings within the tract be subject to an intensive historic resource

survey and inventory in order to determine if the tract constitutes a city of Las Vegas or NRHP eligible

Historic District. The buildings should also be evaluated for their individual eligibility under Criteria B and C.

Due to the uniqueness of the neighborhood, additional tracts should be evaluated as a Historic District under

Criterion A (event) for its association with Land Usage: Townsite Development/City Planning, as a

representative example of post-WWII subdivision development in Las Vegas.

West Las Vegas

Mooney’s 2003 intensive level survey of West Las Vegas recommended additional intensive survey of West

Las Vegas “beginning with the remaining historic buildings within the survey boundaries where the oldest and

most valuable resources exist” (Mooney 2003d). The report notes that loss of historic fabric in West Las

Vegas renders the existence of a historic district unlikely, but notes that “gems” of individually eligible

properties are likely to exist. In addition, the presence of a relatively large number of religious properties and

social clubs was cited as potentially indicative of a subset of properties that could be listed under a Multiple

Property Cover Document. While the current context does not provide the level of documentation to support

a multiple property listing of West Las Vegas properties under a “social history” area of significance, it does

provide substantiation of unique trends influencing residential development in this part of the city during

WWII that warrant further archival and field research.


REFERENCES

Ainlay, Thomas, Jr., and Judy Dixon Gabaldon 2003 Las Vegas: The Fabulous First Century. Arcadia Publishing, Great Britain. Ames, David L. and Linda Flint McClelland 2002 Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic

Places. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Anderson, Rachel J. 2012 “African American Legal History in Nevada (1861-2011).” Nevada Lawyer Magazine. Assistant Chief of Air Staff 1945 Army Air Forces Historical Studies: No. 31, Flexible Gunnery Training in the AAF. Assistant Chief of Air Staff,

Intelligence Historical Division. USAF Historical Division, Archives Branch, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. Electronic document https://archive.org/details/a529938, accessed April 1, 2015.

Author unknown 1941 “Three Million Dollar Residence Building Program in Vegas Near.” Las Vegas Evening Review Journal, 20

December 1941. Becker, Suzanne 2005 Nevada Test Site Oral History Project, University of Nevada, Las Vegas: Interview with Lawrence Lermusiaux,

July 14, 2005. Electronic document available at http://digital.library.unlv.edu/api/1/objects/nts/1149/bitstream, accessed on March 17, 2015.

Blue, Helen M. and Jamie Coughtry 1991 Clarence Ray: Black Politics and Gaming in Las Vegas, 1920s–1980s. University of Nevada Oral History

Program, Reno. Bunyak, Dawn, Thomas Simmins and R. Laurie Simmons 2011 Denver Area Post-World War II Suburbs National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation

Form. Electronic document https://www.codot.gov/programs/research/pdfs/2011/suburbs.pdf, accessed April 5, 2015.

Cahlan, A.E. 1942 “From Where I Sit.” Las Vegas Evening Review Journal, May 4, 1941. Canfield, Ralph 1976 Interview of Ralph Canfield, 20 March 1976. Local Oral History Project Collection #OH-00329. University of

Nevada, Las Vegas Lied Library Special Collections. Casey, Dana H. and Pat Stein 1991 First Baptist Church National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. Electronic document available at

http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/nrhp/text/91001576.PDF, accessed March 11, 2015. Census of Population and Housing 1930 U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1930: Summary Population and Housing Characteristics: Nevada.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1940 U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1940: Summary Population and Housing Characteristics: Nevada.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. City of Henderson Redevelopment Agency n.d. Historic Henderson walking Tour. Electronic document available at http://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/african-

americans-las-vegas, accessed April 4, 2015.


Clark County Museum n.d. “Beckley House.” Electronic pamphlet available at

http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/Depts/parks/PublishingImages/Museums/flyer-becklyhouse.jpg, accessed on March 17, 2015.

Colean, Miles 1944 American Housing, Problems and Prospects. The Twentieth Century Fund, New York. Coughtry, Jamie and R. T. King 1990 Woodrow Wilson: Race, Community and Politics in Las Vegas, 1940s–1980s. University of Nevada Oral History

Program, Reno. Doan, Mason C. 1997 American Housing Production A Concise History. University Press of American, Inc., Lanham. Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Planning and Land Use 2015 Historic Resources – Buildings. Electronic document available at http://dlanc.com/planning/projects/historic-

resources-survey/historic-resources-building-list/, accessed on April 6, 2015. Federal Housing Administration 1934 Annual Report of the Federal Housing Administration. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1938 Planning Profitable Neighborhoods Technical Bulletin No. 7. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1940 Seventh Annual Report of the Federal Housing Administration. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1940a Principles of Planning Small Houses. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1942 Tenth Annual Report of the Federal Housing Administration. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1943 Tenth Annual Report of the Federal Housing Administration. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1945 Twelfth Annual Report of the Federal Housing Administration. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1952 Eighteenth Annual Report of the Federal Housing Administration Year Ending December 31, 1951. Government

Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Fitzgerald, Roosevelt 1981 “Blacks and the Boulder Dam Project.” Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 24(1981):255–261. Garza, Xazmin 2011 “Beckley Boutique has Long History in Las Vegas.” Las Vegas-Review Journal, 31 March 2011. Electronic

document available at http://www.reviewjournal.com/life/fashion/beckley-boutique-has-long-history-vegas, accessed on March 17, 2015.

George, G. G. 1992 Encanto-Palmcroft Historic District (Boundary Increase) National Register of Historic Places Registration Form.

Document available at http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/92000670.pdf, accessed March 11, 2015. Grebler, Leo ed. 1953 “New Housebuilding under FHA and VA Programs” in The Role of Federal Credit Aids in Residential

Construction. Occasional Paper 39, National Bureau of Economic Research. Gries, John M. and James Ford 1932 Planning for Residential Districts. The President’s Conference on Home Building and Home Ownership.

National Capital Press, Inc., Washington D.C.


Gueco, Myles 2014 “Facilities under scrutiny as hotel college strives to stay competitive.” The Rebel Yell, available at

http://www.unlvrebelyell.com/2014/03/06/facilities-under-scrutiny-as-hotel-college-strives-to-stay-competitive/, accessed on March 12, 2015.

Hallas, James H. 1995 Squandered Victory: The American First Army at St. Mihiel. Praeger Publishers, Westport, Connecticut. Hansen, Morris H. 1946 Statistical Abstract of the United States 1946 Sixty-Seventh Number. U.S. Department of Commerce.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Henderson Historical Society n.d. “1940.” Henderson Historical Society home page. Electronic Document available at

http://hendersonhistoricalsociety.org/, accessed May 11, 2015. Highsmith, Andrew 2009 Demolition Means Progress: Race, Class, and the Deconstruction of the American Dream in Flint, Michigan.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Hirsch, Arnold Richard and Raymond A. Mohl 1993 Urban Policy in Twentieth-century America. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick. Hoover Institute Archives 1998 “Register of the President’s Conference on Home Building and Home Ownership (1931: Washington, D.C.)

Records, 1931-1932.” Electronic Document available at http://pdf.oac.cdlib.org/pdf/hoover/presconfhb.pdf, accessed March 13, 2015.

Hopkins, A. D. 1999a “A. E. Cahlan.” Electronic article available at http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/ae-cahlan, accessed April 6,

2015.

ICF International 2014 Phase II Huntridge Neighborhood Historic Resource Survey and Inventory. ICF International, Las Vegas. Killory, Christine 1993 “Temporary Suburbs: The Lost Opportunity of San Diego’s National Defense Housing Projects.” The Journal of

San Diego History (39)1–2. Knack, Ruth, Stuart Meck, and Israel Stollman 1996 “The Real Story Behind the Standard Planning and Zoning Acts of the 1920s.” Land Use Law and Zoning

Digest, February. Electronic Document available at https://www.planning.org/growingsmart/pdf/LULZDFeb96.pdf, accessed March 11, 2015.

Lenz, Richard 1993 Huntridge Theater National Register of Historic Planes Registration Form. Electronic document available at

http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/files/Huntridgenomination.pdf, accessed April 4, 2015. Life 1947 “The Cherokee Indian.” Life, November 10, p. 150-151. Luckingham, Bradford 1989 Phoenix the History of a Southwestern Metropolis. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.


Luskey Brothers & Co. 1954 Luskey’s Official Las Vegas Criss Cross Directory. The Directory Service Company, Santa Ana. 1957 Luskey’s Official Las Vegas Criss Cross Directory. Luskey Brothers & Company, Santa Ana. Lyle, Michael 2012 “Well-Known Architect Designed Henderson’s Carver Park.” Electronic article available at

http://www.reviewjournal.com/life/las-vegas-history/well-known-architect-designed-hendersons-carver-park, accessed on February 13, 2015.

2014 “Chinese immigrants helped build, feed early Nevada.” Las Vegas Review Journal. Electronic article available at http://www.reviewjournal.com/nevada-150/chinese-immigrants-helped-build-feed-early-nevada, accessed on April 10, 2015.

2014a “Hispanic population increase with Nevada’s growth.” Las Vegas Review Journal. Electronic article available at: http://www.reviewjournal.com/nevada-150/hispanic-population-increases-nevada-s-growth, accessed on April 10, 2015.

Malone, Michael and Richard Etulain 1989 The American West: A Twentieth-century History. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Martin, Elinor and Betty Bouris 2006 Menifee Valley. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston. Mason, Joseph B. 1982 History of Housing in the U.S. 1930-1980. Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, Texas. Maxwell, Shirley and James C. Massey n.d. “Ranch Days.” Old House Journal. Electronic document available at: :http://www.oldhousejournal.com/magazine/1508, accessed May 10, 2012. May, Clifford 1946 Sunset Western Ranch Houses. Hennessey & Ingalls, Santa Monica, California. McAlester, Virginia and Lee 2004 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. McGann, Shaun 2013 FHA Underwriting Manual. The Cities, Suburbs and Schools Project at Trinity College. Electronic Document

available at http://commons.trincoll.edu/cssp/2013/09/15/fha-underwriting-manual/, accessed March 15, 2015. Minor, Woodruff and R. A. Brevoort 1983 Encanto-Palmcroft Historic District National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Registration Form.

Electronic document available at http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/nrhp/text/84000696.PDF, accessed March 11, 2015.

Miranda, M.L. 1997 A History of Hispanics in Southern Nevada. University of Nevada Press, Reno. Mitchell, J. Paul 1985 “The Historical Context for Housing Policy.” Federal Housing Policy and Programs Past and Present. Ed. J.

Paul Mitchell. Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick. Moehring, Eugene P. 1989 “Town Making on the Southern Nevada Frontier: Las Vegas, 1905–1925.” In History and Humanities: Essays in

Honor of William S. Shepperson. Francis H. Hartigan, editor. University of Nevada Press, Reno, pp. 81–104.

2000 Resort City in the Sunbelt: Las Vegas, 1930–2000. University of Nevada Press, Reno.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/nevada-150/chinese-immigrants-helped-build-feed-early-nevada


Moehring, Eugene P. and Michael S. Green 2005 Las Vegas: A Centennial History. University of Nevada Press, Reno, Nevada. Mooney, Courtney 2002 Historic Resource Inventory Forms for the John S. Park Historic District. On file with the Nevada SHPO, Reno.

2003a John S. Park Historic District National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada.

2003b Biltmore Homes Historic Resources Survey and Inventory. On file with the City of Las Vegas Planning and Development Department.

2003c Mayfair Homes Historic Resource Survey and Inventory. On file with the City of Las Vegas Planning and Development Department.

2003d City of Las Vegas Historic Resource Survey and Inventory: West Las Vegas. On file with the City of Las Vegas Planning and Development Department.

2007 Historic Resource Survey Report: Basic Magnesium, Inc., Basic Townsite Homes Vol. V, Henderson, Clark County, Nevada.

Myers, Terri, Kristen Brown, Kevin Weight, and William Collins 2010 Residential Subdivisions and Architecture in Central Phoenix, 1870-1963 National Register of Historic Places

Multiple Property Documentation Form. Document on file with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, Phoenix.

Nevada Humanities Council n.d. African Americans in Las Vegas. Online Nevada Encyclopedia, Nevada Humanities Council. Electronic

Document available at, http://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/african-americans-las-vegas, accessed April 13, 2015.

Nickel, Robert V. 2012 “Dollars, Defense, and the Desert: Southern Nevada’s Military Economy and the Second World War,” Psi Sigma

Siren: Vol. 3:Iss.1, Article 5. Electronic document http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=psi_sigma_siren, accessed April 2, 2015.

Online Nevada Encyclopedia n.d. “Al Cahlan.” Electronic document available at http://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/al-cahlan, accessed on

April 6, 2015. Paher, Stanley W. 1971 Las Vegas as It Began and Grew. Nevada Publications, Las Vegas, Nevada. Painter, D. J. 2005 Huntridge Tracts 1 and 2 Historic Resource Survey and Inventory. Painter Preservation & Planning, Petaluma. 2007 Berkley Square Historic District National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. Electronic document

available at: http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/files/Berkley_Square_National_Register_Report.pdf,l accessed on March 9, 2015.

Peterson, Sarah Jo 2013 Planning the Home Front: Building Bombers and Communities at Willow Run. The University of Chicago Press,

Chicago. Quimby McCoy Preservation Architecture 2012 Garland Residential Idea Book. City of Garland Planning Department, Garland, Texas.


Remington, William 1947 “The Veterans Emergency Housing Program.” Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 12, no. 1, Winter. Rome, Adam 2001 The Bulldozer in the Countryside: Suburban Sprawl and the Rise of American Environmentalism. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge. Sadovich, Maryellen Vallier 1971 Basic Magnesium, Incorporated and the Industrialization of Southern Nevada During World War II. Master’s

Thesis. University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Semer, Milton P., Julian H. Zimmerman, Ashley Ford, and John M. Frantz

1985 “Evolution of Federal Legislative Policy in Housing: Housing Credits.” Federal Housing Policy and Programs Past and Present. Ed. J. Paul Mitchell. Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick.

Sies, Mary Corbin and Christopher Silver (eds) 1996 Planning the 20

th Century American City. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Social Security Administration 1944 “The G.I. Bill of Rights: An Analysis of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944.” Social Security Bulletin,

Vol. 7, No. 7, July. Squires, Gregory D. (ed) 1992 From Redlining to Reinvestment: Community Responses to Urban Disinvestment. Temple University Press,

Philadelphia. Stabile, Donald 2000 Community Associations: The Emergence and Acceptance of a Quiet Innovation in Housing. Greenwood Press,

Westport, Connecticut. Stevens, Joseph 1988 Hoover Dam: an American Adventure. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Stokes, Robert J. Thomas E. Jones, Gina Gage, Gerald Doyle, Jared Smith, and Helana Ruter 2007 La Hacienda Historic District National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. Electronic document

available at http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/nrhp/text/09000002.PDF, accessed April 8, 2015. Taylor, F. A. 2014 Grant Hall Namesake Had Crucial Role in Creation of UNLV. Las Vegas Review-Journal, 3 July 2014. The Congressional Research Service 2004 A Chronology of Housing Legislation and Selected Executive Actions 1892-2003. Committee on Financial

Services. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Electronic document available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-108HPRT92629/html/CPRT-108HPRT92629.htm, accessed March 30, 2015.

United States Bureau of the Census 1949 Historical Statistics of the United States 1789-1945. United States Department of Commerce. U.S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, D.C. United States Congress Senate Committee on Banking and Currency 1948 Federal housing programs, chronology and description: Dec. 1, 1948. Government Printing Office, Washington,

D.C.


United States Department of the Interior 1989 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register of

Historic Places, Interagency Division, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015 CPI Inflation Calculator. Available at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl, accessed June 15, 2015. U.S. President’s Commission on Veterans’ Pensions 1985 “Objectives and Historical Development of Veterans’ Loan Benefits.” Federal Housing Policy and Programs

Past and Present. Ed. J. Paul Mitchell. Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick. Van Dee, Crystal R. 2009 Clark County. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston. Veenstra, Theodore A. 1941 “Defense Housing Policies and Progress.” Monthly Labor Review. Vol. 52, No. 5, May. Electronic document

http://www.jstor.org/stable/i40085581, accessed March 24, 2015. Waldron, Webb 1942 “Desert Giant.” Forbes October 1. BMI Collection Box #2, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Lied Library Special

Collections. War Production Board 1942 War Housing Manual Including War Housing Critical List and Procedures for Processing Applications. U.S.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Weintraub, Ruth G. and Rosalind Tough 1942 “Federal Housing and World War II.” The Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics. Vol. 18 No. 2, May.

Electronic document available at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=jlandpublutileco, accessed February 20, 2015.

Weiss, Marc 1989 The Rise of the Community Builders: The American Real Estate Industry and Urban Planning. In B. Kelly (Ed.),

Suburbia Re-Examined: (Contributions in Sociology). Greenwood Press, New York. Wendt, Paul F. 1962 Housing Policy – the Search for Solutions. University of California Press, Berkeley. White, C. D. and Peter Michel n.d. How the Westside Began. Electronic document available at: http://digital.library.unlv.edu/aae/westside-history-

spotlight, accessed on 9 March 2015. White, Claytee 2004 “The March That Never Happened: Desegregating the Las Vegas Strip,” Nevada Law Journal: Vol. 5: ISS.1,

Article 5. Electronic document available at http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/nlj/vol5/iss1/5, accessed June 18, 2015. White, Eugene 2009 “Lessons from the Great American Real Estate Boom and Bust of the 1920s.” Working Paper 15573. National

Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Electronic document available at http://econweb.rutgers.edu/ewhite/w15573.pdf, accessed February 30, 2015.

Whitely, Joan Burkhart 2005 Young Las Vegas, 1905–1931: Before the Future Found Us. Stephens Press, LLC, Las Vegas.

world war ii era residential housing in las vegas, clark...

Documents